Fraudulent ITC Demand Not Entertained in Writ – Appeal Directed | HC
- Blog|News|GST & Customs|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 19 December, 2025

Case Details: Aman Sanitation vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST [2025] 181 taxmann.com 365 (Delhi)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Prathiba M. Singh & Shail Jain, JJ.
-
Shivender Kr. Sharma & Urooj Chaudhary, Advs. for the Petitioner.
-
Pranay Mohan Govil, SSC for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner challenged an order-in-original on the ground of alleged fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC). The proceedings arose from an investigation into fake entities transferring ITC, with notices issued identifying the petitioner as a purported recipient of liability. The petitioner submitted that the demand violated the principles of natural justice due to the absence of a personal hearing and the failure to consider its reply. It was contended that the demand should be quashed. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that writ jurisdiction in fraudulent ITC matters is generally not exercised, given the complex facts and potential exchequer impact. The Court clarified that writ relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is available only in limited circumstances, such as violations of fundamental rights, breaches of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or challenges to vires. Since the petitioner was aware of the notices and had responded, no exceptional ground arose. The Court did not interfere with the demand order. It directed the petitioner to pursue an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, subject to a pre-deposit.
List of Cases Referred to
- Asstt. Commissioner of State Tax v. Commercial Steel Ltd. [2021] 130 taxmann.com 180/88 GST 799/52 GSTL 385 (SC) (para 8)
- Mukesh Kumar Garg v. Union of India [2025] 174 taxmann.com 638/98 GSTL 419 (Delhi) (para 9)
- Sheetal and Sons v. Union of India [2025] 175 taxmann.com 597 (Delhi) (para 10)
- MHJ Metaltechs (P.) Ltd. v. Central GST Delhi South [2025] 174 taxmann.com 1277/110 GST 288/99 GSTL 446 (Delhi) (para 11)
- Metal Techs v. Central GST, Delhi South [2025] 179 taxmann.com 254 (SC) (para 12)
- Toshniwal Electricals (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Central Tax Delhi North [2025] 180 taxmann.com 166 (Delhi) (para 13).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.

Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied

CA | CS | CMA