Dismissed¶47

Jbn Impex Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner Adjudication Cgst Delhi North & Ors.

Delhi HC29 Apr 2026W.P.(C)/5814/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CGST Act 2017 Section 74; Section 74(2) and Section 74(10); consolidated show cause notice; clubbing/consolidation of SCN and order combining multiple financial years; FORM GST DRC-01; writ of certiorari; natural justice and limitation; Delhi High Court followed Ambika Traders (2025:DHC:6181-DB) and Vallabh Textiles (W.P.(C) 13855/2024); Technosys Integrated Solutions (2026:DHC:2233-DB); contrary view of Madras High Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court; Supreme Court liberty in Aparna Collection WP(C) No. 890/2025; writ petitions dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioners; writ petitions dismissed and pending applications, if any, disposed of. ¶47

Jbn Impex Private Limited Vs Additional Commissioner… — GST and Indirect Tax | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioners; writ petitions dismissed and pending applications, if any, disposed of.

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether Section 74(2) and Section 74(10) of the CGST Act, 2017 permit the respondents to determine tax by issuing consolidated show cause notices and orders by combining multiple financial years (including the vires challenge to such use). +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

This Court has consistently taken the view that consolidation of the notices for various financial years is very much permitted, and the Court sees no reason to take a different view from the view already consistently expressed.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

The differing views of the Madras High Court and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, as pointed out by the petitioner, would not persuade the Court to deviate from the view already expressed in its earlier judgment.

¶43

Key takeaways

The issue is squarely covered by the decisions in Ambika Traders and Vallabh Textiles.ratio¶46
The writ petitions stand dismissed and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court Division Bench (Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul, JJ.), by order dated 29.04.2026, dismissed three writ petitions — W.P.(C) 5814/2026 (JBN Impex Pvt. Ltd.), W.P.(C) 5838/2026 (Brilliant Metals Pvt. Ltd.) and W.P.(C) 5866/2026 (Progressive Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd.) — which challenged the vires of Section 74(2) and Section 74(10) of the CGST Act, 2017 and sought quashing of an order dated 05.12.2024 and a show cause notice dated 23.10.2023 (with FORM GST DRC-01 dated 03.08.2024) issued under Section 74 CGST Act by consolidating multiple financial years, alleging prejudice to principles of natural justice and limitation. Holding that this Court has consistently taken the view that consolidation of show cause notices for various financial years is very much permitted, the Court followed Ambika Traders (2025:DHC:6181-DB) (further followed in M/S Technosys Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd., 2026:DHC:2233-DB) and Vallabh Textiles (W.P.(C) 13855/2024), and held the issue squarely covered. The contrary decisions of the Madras High Court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court, relied on by the petitioners (liberty having been granted by the Supreme Court in M/S Aparna Collection, WP(C) No. 890/2025), were held not to persuade the Court to deviate. Petitions dismissed; pending applications disposed of.

¶1

$~78, 79 & 81

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 5814/2026 & CM APPL. 28621/2026, CM APPL. 28622/2026 JBN IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhishek Garg, Mr. Yash Gaiha, Mr. Naman Mehta, Advs.

¶4

versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER ADJUDICATION CGST DELHI NORTH & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, Senior Standing Counsel for CGST with Mr Parikshit Singh Bhati and Ms Lolita Crasta, Advocates for R-1 to 3. 79 + W.P.(C) 5838/2026 & CM APPL. 28670/2026, CM APPL. 28671/2026 BRILLIANT METALS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhishek Garg, Mr. Yash Gaiha, Mr. Naman Mehta, Advs. versus JOINT COMMISSIONER ADJUDICATION CGST DELHI NORTH & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Anushree Narain, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Yamit Jetley, Adv. 81 + W.P.(C) 5866/2026 & CM APPL. 28734/2026, CM APPL. 28735/2026

¶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 02/05/2026 at 12:57:55

¶7

PROGRESSIVE ALLOYS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED

¶8

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhishek Garg, Mr. Yash Gaiha, Mr. Naman Mehta, Advs.

¶9

versus

¶10

JOINT COMMISSIONER ADJUDICATION CGST DELHI NORTH & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Appearance not given.

¶11

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

¶12

O R D E R % 29.04.2026

¶13

Heard.

¶14

The prayer in the W.P.(C) 5814/2026 reads thus:-

¶15

“A. Issue appropriate Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ/order/directions challenging vires & declaring that Section 74 (2) and Section 74 (10) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, cannot be used by Respondents to determine tax by issuing consolidated show cause notices by combining multiple financial years and consequently issuing an order consolidating and combining multiple financial years to the detriment of taxpayers and curtailing the rights of taxpayers as far as principles of natural justice and limitation are concerned.

¶16

B. Issue appropriate Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ/order/directions declaring that Section 74 (2) and Section 74 (10) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 do not permit the issuance of consolidated show cause notices by combining multiple financial years and consequently issuing an order consolidating and combining multiple financial years.

¶17

C. Issue appropriate Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ/order/directions for quashing the Impugned Order dated 05.12.2024 issued by Respondent No. 1

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

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 02/05/2026 at 12:57:55

¶20

on 20.01.2025 under Section 74 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 as the same have been issued for multiple financial years, in a wholly arbitrary and illegal manner.

¶21

D. Issue appropriate Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ/order/directions for quashing the Impugned Show Cause Notice dated 23.10.2023, issued along with FORM GST DRC – 01 on 03.08.2024 by Respondent No. 2 under Section 74 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 as the same have been issued for multiple financial years, in a wholly arbitrary and illegal manner.

¶22

E. Issue appropriate Writ in the nature of Prohibition or any other appropriate writ/order/directions to grant stay on the operation of the Impugned Order dated 05.12.2024 issued by Respondent No.1 on 20.01.2025 under Section 74 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.

¶23

F. Pass any fresh order or any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble High Court may deem fit, just and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

¶24

The genesis in support of the aforesaid prayer being made in the present writ petition is based on a consolidation of multiple financial years. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the issue is sub judice before the Apex Court and also the Apex Court in the matter of M/S Aparna Collection Vs. Union Of India in WP(C) No. 890/2025 has granted liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court, in light of the decisions of the Madras High Court and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on the said issue which according to the petitioner, are in its favour.

¶25

According to him, in both these judgments, it is decided by the Courts that the clubbing of Show Cause Notices for multiple financial years is not permissible.

¶26

The aforesaid contentions are appreciated in the light of the judgment of this Court in the matter of “ Ambika Traders through Proprietor Gaurav Gupta v. Additional Commissioner Adjudication DGGSTI, CGST Delhi

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

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 02/05/2026 at 12:57:55

¶29

North” (2025:DHC:6181-DB), which is further followed in “M/S Technosys Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. (2026:DHC:2233-DB). In both these matters, this Court has already held that the consolidation is very much permissible.

¶30

Apart from the above, it is the case of respondents that in the matter of “Vallabh Textiles Though Its Authorized Representative v. Additional/Joint Commissioner, CGST Delhi East Commissionerate And Ors. in W.P (C)13855/2024, it is already ruled in favour of the respondent that such consolidation is already permissible.

¶31

The relevant observations made in the matter of Vallabh Textiles (supra) reads thus:-

¶32

1. The instant writ petition seeks to assail the validity of a Show Cause Notice [“SCN”] dated 29 May 2024 and which raises issues pertaining to Financial Years [“FYs”] 2017-18 to 2021-22.

¶33

2. The principal ground of challenge which was addressed before us was with respect to the action of the respondents who have proceeded to issue a consolidated notice for the aforesaid period.

¶34

3. 3. On an ex-facie perusal of Section 74 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 [“CGST”]/Delhi Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 [“DGST”], we find ourselves unable to sustain that challenge in the absence of any prohibition that may have been statutorily engrafted in this respect. That in any case would not constitute a jurisdictional challenge warranting the writ petition being entertained against a SCN.

¶35

4. Insofar as FY 2017-18 is concerned, it was the submission of learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the same would not sustain bearing in mind the provisions contained in Section 74(10) of the CGST Act, 2017/DGST Act, 2017. Insofar as that question is concerned, we leave it open to the writ petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings independently.

¶36

5. Bearing in mind the well settled principles which govern situations and contingencies in which a SCN challenge may be entertained by a Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, we find no ground to entertain the instant writ petition.

¶37

This is a digitally signed order.

¶38

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 02/05/2026 at 12:57:55

¶39

6. It shall, subject to the aforesaid observation, stand dismissed .

¶40

The relevant observations made in the judgment of Ambika Traders (supra) are as under:-

¶41

“54. The present case appears to be one such case where a substantial amount of ITC is alleged to have been availed/utilized running into more than Rs.83 Crores. The Petitioner is alleged to be one of the main entities/persons involved in the said activity. The transactions are between the years 2017 to 2021. A consolidated notice is, therefore, not merely permissible but, in fact, required in such cases in order to establish the illegal modality adopted by such businesses and entities. The language of the provision itself does not prevent issuance of SCN or order for multiple years in a consolidated manner.

¶42

55. Even in the order which has been impugned before this Court, the details of the amounts for each year are set out clearly in the content of the order itself and is, therefore, clearly decipherable. Thus, it cannot be held that the issuance of consolidated notice or order violates the language of the provisions. Especially, in the case of fraudulent availment of ITC or utilization of ITC such consolidated notice and order would not just be permissible but may, in fact, be required to show the wilful misstatement or suppression or the fraudulent availment/utilization.”

¶43

In the aforesaid background, we are of the view that since this Court has consistently taken a view that consolidation of the notices for various financial years is very much permitted, we see no reason to take a different view than the view which is already consistently expressed by this Court. 11. Merely, because the other High Courts i.e., Madras High Court and High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in the opinion of the petitioner have taken a different view that would not persuade us to deviate from the view which has already been expressed in the aforesaid judgment.

¶44

This is a digitally signed order.

¶45

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 02/05/2026 at 12:57:55

¶46

That being so, in our opinion, the issue is squarely covered by both these judgments viz. in the matter of Ambika Traders (Supra) and in the matter of Vallabh Textiles (supra).

¶47

That being so, these writ petitions stand dismissed.

¶48

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶49

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

¶50

NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J

¶51

AJAY DIGPAUL, J

¶52

APRIL 29, 2026/ sky/ok

¶53

This is a digitally signed order. 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 02/05/2026 at 12:57:55

Jbn Impex Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner Adjudication Cgst Delhi North & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jbn Impex Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner Adjudication Cgst Delhi North & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akhilesh Kumar Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Deenbandhu Malik Vs Union of India and Ors.

Vineet Kumar Chaudhary Vs State Bank of India

Green Fortune Communications Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 30 Delhi & Ors.

Sh. Robin Aggarwal Vs Smt. Vidya

Ali Ahmed Khan Vs Union of India & Ors.

Shah Nawaz Vs the Manager, Dhanpatmal Virmani Sr. Sec. School and Ors.

M/S Mittal Trading Company and Anr. Vs Shri Ashok Kumar and Anr.

Rohit Gupta Vs Union of India and Ors.

Suresh Chand Verma Vs Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax (Cgst), Delhi South & Ors.

Sandeep Singh Vs Hindustan Spirits Ltd.

Progressive Alloys (India) Private Limited Vs Joint Commissioner Adjudication Cgst Delhi North & Ors.

Rajeev Aggarwal Vs Union Ofindia & Ors.

Ms Dermaclinix the Complete Skin and Hair Solution Center Vs Additional Commissioner Central Goods and Services Tax Delhi East