Facts of the case: The Petitioner challenged SCN issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Anti-Evasion, CGST Delhi North and O-I-O alleging fraudulent passing of Input Tax Credit (ITC) involving transactions across multiple years (2017–2021).

The petitioner invoked Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the jurisdiction and validity of the consolidated SCN and the adjudication order.

Issue: Whether a consolidated SCN covering multiple financial years is valid under the CGST Act, particularly in cases of alleged fraudulent availment or passing of ITC?

Held: The High Court referred to its earlier decision in Ambika Traders v. Addl. Commissioner, DGGSTI and observed that Sections 73(3), 73(4), 74(3), and 74(4) of the CGST Act use the expressions “for any period” and “for such periods”, unlike Sections 73(10), 74(10) which refer to a financial year.

The legislative intent allows consolidation of demands for multiple periods in cases involving fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression. Fraudulent ITC transactions often span multiple years; consolidation is not only permissible but sometimes necessary.

The Court noted that the impugned order was appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act.

Writ petition disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal along with pre-deposit; appellate authority to hear the matter on merits without limitation objection.

 Case Name: M/s. Raghunath Enterprises Versus Additional Commissioner, CGST, Delhi North. dated 20.08.2025

To read the complete judgment 2025 Taxo.online 2021