Disposed

Sh. Bhupender Kumar Proprietor of M/S Dabas Construction Co. v. the Commissioner, Gst, West Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC11 May 2026W.P.(C)/1184/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a show cause notice under the CGST Act for omission of interest and penalty amounts. The High Court held the notice did not render the recovery illegal but required specific proposals for interest and penalty, granting liberty to appeal subject to a 10% deposit.

What did the court decide?

Disposed with liberty to appeal; appeal shall not be dismissed on limitation grounds provided 10% deposit is made.

Sh. Bhupender Kumar Proprietor of M/S Dabas Construction… — GST and Indirect Tax | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~1

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 1184/2026 & CM APPL. 5773/2026

¶4

SH. BHUPENDER KUMAR PROPRIETOR OF M/S DABAS CONSTRUCTION CO. .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Prajesh Vikram Srivastava, SPC and Mr. Bhuvnesh Vikram, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

THE COMMISSIONER, GST, WEST DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents

¶8

Through: Mr. Akash Panwar, JSC. Mr. Devvrat Yadav, SPC with Mr. Kartik Sharma, GP. Mr. Shrey Sharawat, SPC alongwith Mr. Himanshu Sihag, Advocate for R-2.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL

¶11

O R D E R % 11.05.2026

¶12

It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that there is violation of Section 75(6) and Section 75(7) of the CGST Tax Act, 2017, inasmuch as the show cause notice dated 29^th December, 2023 did not mention the proposed demand towards interest and penalty.

¶13

As a sequel of above, his contentions are that the show cause notice is

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/05/2026 at 11:46:11

¶16

contrary to the very statute and that being so, the respondent cannot recover the amount of penalty and interest from the petitioner having acted contrary to the statutory mandate.

¶17

As against the above, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the Sections are aptly clear and that where ITC has been wrongly availed or reversed belatedly, the liability towards interest and penalty would follow in accordance with law. According to him, the ITC availed by the petitioner for FY 2018-19 was hit by Section 16(4) of the CGST Act and ought to have been reversed earlier. However, the petitioner reversed/deposited the said ITC amount only in December 2023, i.e. after about four years. Therefore, according to them, interest and penalty are statutorily leviable.

¶18

The fact remains that under sub-sections (6) and (7) of Section 75, the statute mandates that the word “amount” refers to the amount of tax, interest and penalty mentioned in the show cause notice.

¶19

However, merely because the specific amount was not mentioned, that by itself will not render the show cause notice illegal and in such an eventuality, the remedy to the petitioner is that of preferring a statutory appeal.

¶20

However, we make it clear that the respondents in their show cause notice must propose the interest amount to be recovered, particularly the rate at which such interest shall be levied, the proposed penalty, etc.

¶21

In the aforesaid background, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the present petition, along with pending applications, if any, with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy of appeal.

¶22

The appeal shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation,

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/05/2026 at 11:46:11

¶25

provided that the petitioner deposits the liability to the tune of 10%.

¶26

NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J

¶27

AJAY DIGPAUL, J

¶28

MAY 11, 2026/ Sk/yr

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/05/2026 at 11:46:11

Sh. Bhupender Kumar Proprietor of M/S Dabas Construction Co. v. the Commissioner, Gst, West Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sh. Bhupender Kumar Proprietor of M/S Dabas Construction Co. v. the Commissioner, Gst, West Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manju Sharma & Ors. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Workmen Represented by Delhi Offices and Establishment Employees Union Vs Management of Air India (Formerly Known as Indian Airlines Ltd.)

Union of India & Ors. Vs Prasanta Mondal

Commissioner of Police & Ors. Vs Somnath

Cpio Upsc Vs D Thamizhamani

Hasan Agah and Ors. Vs Delhi Development Authority and Ors.

Allahabad Bank Vs R.S.Saini

Praveen Singh Chauhan Security Agency Private Limited Vs Public Works Department (Pwd) & Ors.

Kushal Ram Vs Commissioner of Customs & Anr.

Vadodara Mumbai Expressway Pkg 10 Pvt. Ltd. Vs National Highways Authority of India

M/S Mctrans Global Logistics Private Limited & Ors. Vs Additional Commissioner Delhi South Commissionerate & Ors.

M/S Delhi Msw Solutions Limited Vs the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.

M/S Chrysalis Trading Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Cgst, Commissionerate South Delhi

M/S Shree Ganesh Cementech Vs Commissioner of Central Tax Cgst Delhi West Commissionerate and Ors.