M/S. Rahul And Sons Huf & Anr. vs Additional Commissioner, Cgst Delhi West & Ors.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~22 & 43
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 21.08.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010390382026
+ W.P.(C) 12148/2026, CM APPL. 56339/2026 and CM APPL.
56340/2026
M/S VLEADIT & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Yogendra Aldak, Mr.
Kunal Kapoor, Mr. Yatharth
Tripathi, Advs.
versus
ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, CGST DELHI WEST &
ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Anushree Narain, SSC with
Mr. Apurv Yadav, Mr. Naman
Choula, Advs.
Mr. Arjun Malik, SSC-CBIC
with Ms. Mayuri Makhija, Adv.
for R-4.

(43)
# CNR No. DLHC010181632026
+ W.P.(C) 5761/2026, CM APPL. 28346/2026, CM APPL.
28347/2026 and CM APPL. 33156/2026
M/S. RAHUL AND SONS HUF & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Yogendra Aldak, Mr.
Kunal Kapoor, Mr. Yatharth
Tripathi, Advs.
versus
ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, CGST DELHI WEST &
ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Anushree Narain, SSC with
Mr. Apurv Yadav, Mr. Naman
Choula, Advs.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:29.08.2026
15:39:21

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:
1. The present common order shall dispose of W.P.(C) 5761/2026
and W.P.(C) 12148/2026. In both the Writ Petitions, the Petitioners
seek quashing of the Order-in-Original dated 26.12.2025 [hereinafter
referred to as ‘Impugned Order-in-Original’], as subsequently rectified
on 25.06.2026.
2. The Impugned Order-in-Original is a common order passed
against as many as 629 firms and individuals. The dispute emanates
from information received by the Department that Sh. Vikrant
Singhal, Sh. Sachin Singhal and Sh. Pradeep Kumar were engaged in
arranging invoices without actual supply of goods to various firms and
recipients. Pursuant thereto, a search operation was conducted on
09.10.2024 at the office and residential premises of the aforesaid three
persons, during which various documents and electronic data were
seized under Panchnamas.
3. Apart from invoices, e-way bills and transporters’ bills, cash
amounting to Rs.22,96,550/- was also seized from the premises of Sh.
Vikrant Singhal and Sh. Sachin Singhal.
4. It is the case of the Department that large-scale issuance and
availment of fake purchase and sale invoices was undertaken through
various firms managed by the aforesaid three persons.
5. The names of both these Petitioners figure at Serial Nos.616
and 618 (respectively) of the Impugned Order-in-Original passed by
the Adjudicating Authority, namely, the Additional Commissioner,
CGST, Delhi West [hereinafter referred to as ‘Adjudicating
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:29.08.2026
15:39:21

Authority’].
6. At the outset, it is not disputed that the Petitioners have a
statutory alternative remedy of filing an appeal against the Impugned
Order-in-Original. However, learned counsel representing the
Petitioners has made the following submissions:
i. No role has been attributed to the Petitioners in the Show
Cause Notice dated 30.06.2025 [hereinafter referred to as
‘SCN’].
ii. The Petitioners, in both the Writ Petitions, submitted
detailed Replies to the SCN, which have not been considered by
the Adjudicating Authority while passing the Impugned Order-
in-Original.
iii. The Petitioners are not involved in the alleged racket and
the Adjudicating Authority was required to consider their cases
separately, particularly since the Petitioners are alleged to have
entered into only a single transaction with M/s. Sahuwala Exports
Pvt. Ltd.
7. As noticed hereinabove, the Impugned Order-in-Original is a
consolidated order passed against 629 firms and individuals. The
Department has found large-scale availment of ineligible input tax
credit on the basis of fake invoices and invoices issued without actual
supply of goods.
8. A detailed Order-in-Original has been passed by the
Adjudicating Authority dealing with the allegations against the
various firms and individuals. In the paper book, the Impugned Order-
in-Original, together with its typed copy, runs from Page Nos.80 to
1,959.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:29.08.2026
15:39:21

9. Learned counsel representing the Petitioners, relying upon
Paragraph No.18 of the judgment in M/s. ASP Traders v. State of
1
Uttar Pradesh & Ors. , submits that the principles of natural justice
mandate that, where a taxpayer submits a response to an SCN, the
Adjudicating Authority is required to consider such response and
render a reasoned and speaking order. It is contended that failure to do
so renders the statutory right of appeal illusory or nugatory.
10. This Court has carefully considered the aforesaid judgment. The
said decision is clearly distinguishable on facts, as it concerned an
order passed against an individual assessee and did not deal with a
common order passed against more than 600 firms and individuals.
11. Further, whether the Replies submitted by the present
Petitioners were duly considered, as also the precise role attributable
to them in the transactions in question, are matters which can
appropriately be examined by the Appellate Authority.
12. In a case of the present nature, where detailed and disputed
questions of fact are required to be examined and adjudicated, exercise
of writ jurisdiction, thereby permitting the Petitioners to bypass the
efficacious statutory remedy of appeal, would not be appropriate.
13. A perusal of the Impugned Order-in-Original also shows that
statements of various persons were recorded and the accounts,
invoices and transactions of various firms were examined. The
Adjudicating Authority has recorded a finding that Sh. Vikrant
Singhal and Sh. Sachin Singhal, along with others, were the
masterminds behind the alleged racket involving creation of 107 fake
firms for availing ineligible input tax credit.

1
2025 (7) TMI 1525-SC
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:29.08.2026
15:39:21

14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is not inclined to
exercise our writ jurisdiction. The Petitioners are, accordingly,
relegated to the statutory remedy of appeal.
15. The present Writ Petitions, along with the pending applications,
are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
16. A photocopy of the Order passed today be kept in the connected
matter.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

SHAIL JAIN, J.
AUGUST 21, 2026 /sp/shah




Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:29.08.2026
15:39:21