M/S S.M. Enterprises v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC23 Apr 2026W.P.(C)/5489/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pre-deposit; mandatory pre-deposit condition; statutory appeal; show cause notice date; alternate remedy; liberty to urge contention before Appellate Authority; CBIC; Union of India; Delhi High Court order dated 23.04.2026; W.P.(C) 5450/2026, 5473/2026, 5488/2026, 5489/2026; Tirzah Industries; New Bharat Wire Industries; A R Industries; S.M. Enterprises; petitions disposed of with pending applications.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioners to canvass the contention regarding the mandatory pre-deposit condition before the Appellate Authority; petitions disposed of with pending applications. ¶Order ¶3

M/S S.M. Enterprises Vs Union of India and Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty reserved to the petitioners to canvass the contention regarding the mandatory pre-deposit condition before the Appellate Authority; petitions disposed of with pending applications.

¶Order ¶3

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner can be mandated to make the mandatory pre-deposit for pursuing the statutory appeal, given the contention that the show cause notice predates the existence of the mandatory pre-deposit condition, and whether that contention should be decided in writ jurisdiction or before the Appellate Authority.

¶Order ¶1

Court's answer

The Court proceeded on the admission that the statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, and on that basis declined to decide the pre-deposit contention in writ jurisdiction.

¶Order ¶1

Ratio / Principle

It is open to the petitioner to canvass before the Appellate Authority the contention that, having regard to the date of the show cause notice, the mandatory pre-deposit condition was not in existence, by relying on the relevant position of law; liberty is reserved to the petitioner to that extent, and the Court does not itself decide the issue.

¶Order ¶2

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul, JJ.), order dated 23.04.2026, disposed of four clubbed writ petitions filed by M/s Tirzah Industries, M/s New Bharat Wire Industries, M/s A R Industries and M/s S.M. Enterprises against the Union of India and Others. The petitioners contended that, having regard to the date of the show cause notice, the mandatory pre-deposit condition for pursuing the statutory appeal was not in existence and they could not be compelled to make the pre-deposit, seeking to rely on certain judgments (not named in the order). Observing that the statutory remedy of appeal was admittedly available, the Court held it open to the petitioners to canvass the issue before the Appellate Authority by relying on the relevant position of law, reserved liberty to that extent, and disposed of the petitions along with pending applications. No statutory provision or precedent is cited by name in the order; no adjudication on merits was made.

¶1

$~64 & 67 & 72 & 73

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 5450/2026 & CM APPL. 26650/2026 & CM APPL. 26651/2026

¶4

	M/S TIRZAH I	NDUSTRIES		.....Petitioner
	UNION OF IND	Through: versus IA AND ORS	Mr. Mr.	Pradeep Singh Rawat and Abhinav Kalra, Advocates .....Respondents
67		Through:	Mr. Cou Adv Mr. Ms. Cha	Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Panel nsel with Ms. Nupur Sharma, ocate for R-1/UOI Shubham Tyagi, SSC, CBIC with Navruti Ojha and Mr. Rishabh uhan, Advocates for R-3
+	W.P.(C) 5473/ 26698/2026	2026 & CM	APP	L. 26697/2026 & CM APPL.
	M/S NEW BH	ARAT WIRE IN	DUS	TRIES .....Petitioner
72	UNION OF IN	Through: versus DIA AND ORS Through:	Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Cha	Pradeep Singh Rawat and Abhinav Kalra, Advocates .....Respondents Shubham Tyagi, SSC, CBIC with Navruti Ojha and Mr. Rishabh uhan, Advocates for R-3
+	W.P.(C) 5488/ 26915/2026	2026 & CM	APP	L. 26914/2026 & CM APPL.
	M/S A R INDU	STRIES		.....Petitioner
		Through:	Mr. Mr.	Pradeep Singh Rawat and Abhinav Kalra, Advocates

¶5

This is a digitally signed order.

¶6

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 25/04/2026 at 13:08:09

¶7

versus

¶8

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Nishant Gautam, CGSC (Through VC) Mr. Shubham Tyagi, SSC, CBIC with Ms. Navruti Ojha and Mr. Rishabh Chauhan, Advocates for R-3 73 + W.P.(C) 5489/2026 & CM APPL. 26917/2026 & CM APPL. 26918/2026 M/S S.M. ENTERPRISES .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pradeep Singh Rawat and Mr. Abhinav Kalra, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vaibhav Mishra, SPC with Mr. Bharat Sharma, G.P., Mr. Bilal Khan, Mr. Raghav Sood, Mr. Aditya Jha, Mr. Utsav Madan, Mr. Satvik Bajaj and Ms. Smriti Dua, Advocates for R-1 Mr. Shubham Tyagi, SSC, CBIC with Ms. Navruti Ojha and Mr. Rishabh Chauhan, Advocates for R-3

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

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

¶11

O R D E R % 23.04.2026

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

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 25/04/2026 at 13:08:09

¶14

Admittedly statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that having regard to the date of show cause notice, the mandatory pre-deposit condition was not in existence on the said date, and as such he cannot be mandated to make predeposit. He has sought to rely on certain judgments so as to substantiate said contention.

¶15

In our opinion, it is open for the petitioner to canvass the said issue before the Appellate Authority by relying on such position of law. As such, we reserve liberty to that extent in favour of the petitioner.

¶16

The petitions along with pending applications, if any, accordingly, stand disposed of.

¶17

NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J

¶18

AJAY DIGPAUL, J

¶19

APRIL 23, 2026 gs/sg

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

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 25/04/2026 at 13:08:09

M/S S.M. Enterprises v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S S.M. Enterprises v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jai Singh Vs National Bal Bhavan & Ors.

Dr. Raman Mahindra Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Krishan Chand Gupta & Anr. Vs Office of the Lt.Governor of Delhi & Ors.

Naresh Khorwal Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner & Ors.

Rashtriya Nirbal Uthan Sansthan and Anr. Vs State of N.C.T of Delhi and Ors.

Guru Nanak Public School Vs Directorate of Education & Anr.

Laxmi Narain. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Sonya Surbhi Gupta Vs Jamia Millia Islamia

M/S Op Mittal Industries Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs, Icd Patparganj

Raks Trade Logistics Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner/Gsto, Ward 94

M/S Jbm Global Logistics Vs Commissioner of Customs

Rus Education India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence Dggi and Ors.

M/S Sara Healthcare Private Limited Vs Assistant Drug Controller, Concor, Tughlakabad, Icd and Ors.

Krishna International and Anr. Vs Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax and Anr.