Typo in GST SCN Showing Wrong Year for Reply Deadline Not Enough to Invalidate Proceedings: Delhi HC [Read Order]
The Bench noted that the present case required factual analysis of a wider investigation concerning fraudulent ITC availment and writ jurisdiction cannot generally be exercised.
The Delhi High Court recently held that a mere typographical error in a Goods and Services Tax (GST) show cause notice (SCN), where the due date for filing a reply was incorrectly mentioned as 28 August 2025 instead of 28 August 2024 cannot be treated as a ground to invalidate the proceedings entirely.
The observation was made by the Delhi High Court while adjudicating a writ petition filed by M/s A V Metals Marketing Pvt. Ltd. against the Principal Commissioner CGST and Anr challenging an Order-in-Original dated 21 January 2025 issued by the Additional Commissioner, CGST Delhi North.
A V Metals initially approached the High Court under Article 226, assailing a demand of ₹23,20,171 raised against them in connection with a large-scale investigation into alleged fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) involving 79 fake entities and 1155 recipients.
Complete Supreme Court Judgment on GST from 2017 to 2024 with Free E-Book Access, Click here
Represented by S.B. Sharma and Yashwant Gehlot, the petitioner contended before the Court that they had not been provided a proper opportunity of hearing, resulting in a violation of natural justice. It was also argued that the typographical error in the SCN regarding the reply deadline should render the proceedings unsustainable.
The respondent Revenue represented by Shashank Sharma, Senior Standing Counsel, and Malika Kumari.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Renu Bhatnagar noted that the petitioner had not placed any material on record to show that a reply was filed by them regardless of the fact that the SCN portrayed an erroneous reply date for the petitioner’s reply.
The Court observed that such an error could not be taken advantage of, particularly when the petitioner had admittedly written to the Department seeking documents and was aware of the proceedings.
The Bench further observed that the present case formed part of a wider investigation concerning fraudulent ITC availment exceeding ₹122 crores and that, in such matters involving complex factual analysis, writ jurisdiction is generally not exercised.
The Court referred to its earlier decisions, including Toshniwal Electricals Pvt Ltd vs The Principal Commissioner of Central Tax Delhi North & Ors. (2025), wherein similarly placed taxpayers had been relegated to avail the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
Emphasising the need for consistency, the Bench held that the petitioner is also required to pursue the appellate route, especially since allegations of ITC fraud require detailed factual adjudication inappropriate for writ proceedings.
Accordingly, the Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal by 15 January 2026 with the requisite pre-deposit, directing that the appeal be entertained on merits without being dismissed on limitation.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
