Disposed¶17

Shri Mohit Jain v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC17 Jul 2026W.P.(C)/9594/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GST penalty writ petition disposed; Section 122(1A) CGST Act effective 01.01.2021 retrospectivity contention left to Appellate Authority; consolidated Order-in-Original dated 25.03.2026 against 154 parties by Additional Commissioner, Adjudication (DGGSTI), CGST Delhi (North); fake and non-existent firms issuing bogus invoices without actual supply; statutory appeal under Section 107 CGST Act; writ jurisdiction under Article 226 inappropriate for highly disputed questions of fact; efficacious statutory remedy; Delhi High Court bench of Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan; petitioner at liberty to avail statutory remedy.

What did the court decide?

The Petitioner shall be at liberty to avail the statutory remedy available in accordance with law. ¶17

Shri Mohit Jain Vs Union of India & Anr. — GST and Indirect Tax | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The Petitioner shall be at liberty to avail the statutory remedy available in accordance with law.

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether penalty in respect of the period prior to 01.01.2021 could lawfully have been imposed under Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act, given the Petitioner's contention that the provision came into force only with effect from 01.01.2021. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

Even if any part of the Impugned Order relates to the period prior to 01.01.2021, that aspect can be examined by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law; the Court itself did not decide the Section 122(1A) retrospectivity question.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

Proceedings involving adjudication of highly disputed questions of fact cannot appropriately be examined in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶16

Key takeaways

In view of the availability of an efficacious statutory remedy, the Court does not deem it appropriate to entertain the present Writ Petition at this stage.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court disposed of a W.P.(C) by a Chartered Accountant seeking quashing of an Order-in-Original dated 25.03.2026 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Adjudication (DGGSTI), CGST Delhi (North) — a consolidated adjudication covering 154 parties concerning fake/non-existent firms issuing bogus invoices without actual supply. The Petitioner had contended that penalty for the period prior to 01.01.2021 could not have been imposed under Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act, the provision having come into force only on 01.01.2021. Holding that the proceedings involved highly disputed questions of fact unsuitable for examination under Article 226, and that an efficacious statutory remedy (appeal under Section 107, CGST Act) was available, the Court declined to entertain the petition, leaving any pre-01.01.2021 aspects to the Appellate Authority, and disposed of the petition with liberty to pursue the statutory remedy.

¶1

$~41

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 9594/2026, CM APPL. 44676/2026 and CM APPL. 44677/2026

¶4

SHRI MOHIT JAIN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhishek A. Rastogi, Ms. Diksha Pandey, Ms. Meenal Songire and Ms. Nandini Acharya, Advs.

¶5

versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Arushi Singh, SPC along with Ms. Amrisha Kumari and Mr. Abhinav Vijayaran, Advs. Ms. Anushree Narain, SSC along with Mr. Apurv Yadav, Adv. Mr. Ravi Mittal, GP and Ms. Arushi Mittal, Adv.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

O R D E R

17.07.2026

The Petitioner herein is a Chartered Accountant who has approached this Court seeking quashing of the Order-in-Original dated 25.03.2026 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’] passed by the Additional Commissioner, Adjudication (DGGSTI), CGST Delhi (North).

¶11

A statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CGST Act’] is maintainable against the aforesaid order, which is a consolidated order passed against 154 parties.

¶12

The Petitioner contends that penalty in respect of the period prior to 01.01.2021 could not have been imposed under Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act, as the said provision came into force only

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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 20/07/2026 at 11:42:14

¶15

with effect from 01.01.2021.

¶16

From a perusal of the Impugned Order, it is evident that the adjudicating authority has recorded a finding that certain fake and non-existent firms were engaged in issuing bogus invoices without any actual supply of goods or services. 5. The Impugned Order is a detailed and comprehensive order passed after examining various aspects of the matter. The order runs into approximately more than 250 pages and has been passed after considering the reply filed by the Petitioner and after affording an opportunity of hearing. 6. Even if any part of the Impugned Order relates to the period prior to 01.01.2021, the same can be examined by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law. 7. The present proceedings involve adjudication of highly disputed questions of fact, which cannot appropriately be examined in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. In view of the availability of an efficacious statutory remedy, this Court does not deem it appropriate to entertain the present Writ Petition at this stage.

¶17

Accordingly, the present Writ Petition, along with the pending application(s), is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. The Petitioner shall be at liberty to avail the statutory remedy available in accordance with law.

¶18

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

¶19

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

¶20

JULY 17, 2026 s.godara/pal

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

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 20/07/2026 at 11:42:14

Shri Mohit Jain v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Mohit Jain v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India and Ors. Vs Shakeel Ahmad Burney

Ratinder Nath Abrol Vs New Delhi Municipal Council

Union of India & Ors. Vs Jitender

Suraj Bhan Vs the P.O., D.T.C.

Sh Vyome Mehta Vs Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise Delhi Zone & Ors.

Cma (Dr.) Nirmal Kumar Bhattacharyya Vs Institute of Cost Accountants of India

Employees Provident Fund Organization Vs Prashant Singh & Anr.

Ms. Aqsa Azeem Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Tara Chand Sumit Construction Co. Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Verasys Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

E Trav Tech Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Shri Balaji Enterprises Vs Assistant Commissioner of Dgst & Anr.

M/S Sarv Priya Mahajan Co. Op Group Housing Society Vs Union of India and Ors.

Pallavi Mamilla Vs the Commissioner of Customs