https://validator.w3.org/feed/docs/rss2.html M/s NEW PATEL AUTO GAS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.- Gujarat High Court M/s EPIGRAL LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – Gujarat High Court M/s UMMED ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS – RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BUILDWELLS INFRATECH AND MINING LIMITED v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. – Gujarat High Court M/s RAJESH METALS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR RAJESH KAKAR v. OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER CGST DELHI NORTH THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER M/s MOMS CRADLE PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. M/s KANHA POLYMERS v. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI NORTH M/s METENERE LIMITED v. OFFICE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX – Gujarat High Court VIKAS JAIN v. STATE OF RAJSTHAN, THROUGH THE GST DEPARTMENT – RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT HARBHAJAN SINGH THUKRAL v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND TAXES & ANR GMG TRADELINK PVT. LTD. v. DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE HQ & ORS. M/s BHILWARA TRADING COMPANY v. BANK OF BARODA – RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT M/s SUPER SERVICE POINT v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – Gujarat High Court MR. GURDEV RAJ KUMAR v. COLLECTOR OF STAMPS (GOVERMENT OF NCT OF DELHI) VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ANKIT BANSAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ZODIAC ENERGY LTD. v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, UNIT-5 – Gujarat High Court GAMELOFT SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, RANGE 152 & ANR. KORFEX INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS – RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT C.H. ROBINSON WORLDWIDE FREIGHT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, CGST-DELHI-SOUTH & ORS. ESS DEE INDUSTRIES THROUGH ITS PARTNER SHAMBHU DAYAL SHARMA v. COMMISSIONER OF DGST & ORS SAINT-GOBAIN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – Gujarat High Court M/s R GUPTA METAL STORE (THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SH. MAHESH CHAND GUPTA) v. CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DELHI NORTH (THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER) NIRMAL KUMAR SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT M/s SWARN COSMETICS (INDIA) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. High Court, Delhi Prathiba M. Singh, Justice & Shail Jain, Justice M/s SHIVA ENTERPRISES v. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND TAXES, GNCTD W.P.(C) 13977/2025 dated 30.10.2025 Law : GST Act Name : Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 Decision : In favour of revenue Cancellation of registration – Fraudulent availment of ITC – Field inspection found petitioner non-existent at declared business premises, later installed signboard only for producing false video before Court – Petitioner misled Court and attempted to evade investigation into fraudulent ITC – Such abuse of judicial process cannot be condoned – Held: Writ petition dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,00,000 to be deposited with Delhi High Court Bar Association, GST Department and Sales Tax Bar Association within two weeks. Represented By: Counsel for the Petitioner: Pranay Jain, Adv. Counsel for the Respondent: Sumit K. Batra, Adv. Order: 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. An innocuous petition which has been filed by the Petitioner seeking cancellation of its Goods and Services Tax (hereinafter, ‘GST’) registration with effect from 30th June, 2025 has unravelled the fact that the Petitioner has fraudulently availed of Input Tax Credit (hereinafter, ‘ITC’) amounting to lakhs of rupees. The GST registration of the Petitioner dates back to 7th August, 2024. 3. The case of the Petitioner is that an application bearing no. AA0702254941761 was filed by the Petitioner on 4th July, 2025 for closing down of business. Thereafter, information was sought by the GST Department vide notice dated 9th July, 2025 which was provided by the Petitioner. However, no decision was taken by the GST Department. Hence, this petition was filed. 4. On the last date, Mr. Sumit K. Batra, ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent opposed the writ petition on the ground that the Petitioner had a substantial turnover of more than Rs.7 crores in six to seven months and had not paid any GST in cash in the matter. Considering this submission, the Court had directed Mr. Manish Kumar Jha, the proprietor of M/s. Shiva Enterprises to remain physically present today. In addition, the following direction was issued for filing of returns: “7. The Petitioner shall also file an affidavit giving the details of the turnover of the Petitioner, how much GST has been deposited in cash or as to whether any Input Tax Credit has been availed of by the Petitioner. 8. Moreover, let the returns of the Petitioner for the said seven months period be placed on record by the GST Department as well by the next date of hearing.” 5. The Petitioner has now filed an affidavit in which he has stated that the business was conducted by him from 7th August, 2024 till 4th July, 2025 and the turnover for the said period was Rs.5,95,19,520/- and ITC of Rs.1,07,13,514/- was availed. The Petitioner also states that zero amount was deposited in cash and ‘NIL’ returns have been filed from July onwards. The relevant portion of the said affidavit reads as under: “2. That I have done business from the period starting from 07.08.2024 till 04.07.2025 and my turnover for the said period is Rs. 5,95,19,520/- and I have availed ITC of Rs. 1,07,13,514/- which was available in my firm and deposited an amount of Rs. 0 in cash. 3. That I have filed NIL returns for the period February 2024 – July 2025 as their was no business and therefore applied for cancellation of my GST registration.” 6. Mr. Manish Kumar Jha, who is present in Court submits that he has made a deposit of Rs.98,600/- on 27th October, 2025 with the GST Department. 7. Mr. Sumit K. Batra, ld. Counsel has placed on record a field visit report conducted by the GST Department which shows that the Petitioner does not exist at the address which has been given. The said report reads as under: “Comments: The undersigned visited the business premises of M/s Shiva Enterprises situated at D-4/87 KH.NO. 3/23, KUNWAR SINGH NAGAR, Nangloi, New Delhi, West Delhi, Delhi, 110041 (The firm was found to be Suspended w.e.f. 04/07/2025 as per GST portal). No GST Board was available at the above said address. Further no Business activity of the firm was noticed. However a small stall of PUJA Samahagri was found functioning at the given address. Also enquired from local residents and shop-owner and they denied the existence of any such person / firm in the vicinity. The undersigned also tried to contact on registered mobile number but was found the number is not in use. Report in respect of the firm may be treated as non-functioning / non existing” 8. Mr. Manish Kumar Jha has been queried by the Court. He has handed over to the Court a short video wherein the landlord of the premises of the Petitioner claims that the said shop was given out on rent and no inspection was done by the GST Inspector on 12th September, 2025. The said video also shows the shop with the board of the Petitioner depicted as “Shiva Enterprises”. A relevant image of the said video is extracted below: 9. The landlord is also stated to have signed a certificate which has been presented before the Court which reads as under: 10. On further being queried, Mr. Manish Kumar Jha submits that he got the board installed only yesterday and the video was also taken yesterday. Moreover, as per the above certificate, the landlord himself states that the Petitioner had vacated the premises in July, 2025. However, surprisingly, in the video a board consisting of the Petitioner’s business name is depicted in the video. Clearly, the board has been installed only for the purposes of the video and the Petitioner obviously is not doing business at the said premises. 11. Clearly, both Mr. Jha and his landlord are not revealing the true facts and are clearly misleading the Court. The Petitioner has completely misled the Court about the nature of his business. The entire attempt appears to have been to somehow escape the further legal action by the Department in respect of ITC which is stated to have been availed of from fraudulent entities. The Petitioner has also attempted to completely misrepresent the status of his shop by hanging a board only for the purpose of taking a video. Such conduct cannot be condoned by the Court. 12. Mr. Sumit K. Batra, ld. Counsel submits that fresh notices have been issued to the Petitioner and the Petitioner has been directed to appear tomorrow before the Department. Accordingly, in these facts, the Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition. In fact, severe action is liable to be taken against the Petitioner. However, since the Department has already issued notices for further action, the Court is refraining from doing so. The petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,00,000/- being imposed upon the Petitioner. The said amount shall be deposited in the following manner: Rs. 2,00,000/- with Delhi High Court Bar Association ● Name: Delhi High Court Bar Association ● Account No.: 15530100000478 ● IFSC Code: UCBA0001553 ● Bank & Branch: UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Rs. 2,00,000/- with GST Department ● Demand Draft in the name of ‘Commissioner, Trade & Taxes, Delhi’ payable at Delhi Rs. 1,00,000/- with Sales Tax Bar Association ● Name: Sales Tax Bar Association ● Account No.: 90672010003811 ● Bank Name: Canara Bank ● IFSC: CNRB0019067 13. The said costs shall be deposited within two weeks. The GST Department shall confirm the payment of costs. 14. The petition is dismissed in these terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. TOSHNIWAL ELECTRICALS PVT LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR MUKUND MAHESHWARI v. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISISONER OF CENTRAL TAX DELHI NORTH & ORS. M/s HITACHI ENERGY INDIA LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – Gujarat High Court GULAM FAREED & ORS. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS – RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT PRATIK SATAYANARAYAN GATTANI & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – Gujarat High Court SHREE SAI VIGNESH AGENCY THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR PERUMAL SANJAY GANDHI (FY 2019-20) v. AVATO WARD 39 STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX & ORS. HIGH SPIRIT COMMERCIAL VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED v. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CGST DELHI WEST COMMISSIONERATE M/s SAAKAR INDIA v. THE COMMISSIONER OF DELHI GOODS AND SERVICES TAX & ANR. MANOJ KUMAR & ORS v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS – RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT M/s KALYR RETAIL PVT. LTD. SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF M/s FREEWAY CLOTHING COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAX, DELHI & ORS. KEMEXEL ECOMMERCE PVT. LTD. v. SALES TAX OFFICER CLASS II / AVATO WARD 105, ZONE 4, DELHI VMG FOODS PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR MR. HARISH GOYAL v. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISISONER OF CENTRAL TAX DELHI NORTH & ANR. SINTEX – BAPL LIMITED v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. – Gujarat High Court TAHILIANI DESIGN PRIVATE LIMITED v. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX APPEALS II, DELHI & ORS. DEVENDER SINGH v. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX, DELHI WEST RAM ASHISH v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. XY v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. M/s STALWART INDIA ALLOYS LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. METALLICZ MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. DEVI INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERS & ORS. v. COMMISSIONER OF CGST & ANR. EAGLE TRANS SHIPPING AND LOGISTICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT GLOBAL TECH FAB v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI &ANR M/s SAMARTH TRADERS & ANR v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX OLD DELHI DIVISION CGST DELHI NORTH VENKATESHWARA TRADERS v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Digital Library