The Delhi High Court, to avoid duplication of GST cases, sought its Registry to add a new field for the filing of writ petitions to record DIN (Document Identification Number) and the date of the order being contested
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain passed the direction on marking that multiple writ petitions were being filed contesting the same impugned orders, particularly in cases that have a bogus claim of ITC (Input Tax Credit).
As per the court, in specific cases, there are exceeding than a thousand notices in one single impugned order, and it is not feasible for the court to recall if the same impugned order has earlier been dealt with.
“Thus, in order to avoid conflicting rulings in respect of the same impugned order, the Registry is directed to add a ‘FIELD’ related to the impugned order, recording the corresponding DIN number and the date, at the time of filing of writ petitions challenging the same.”
The court said this is important so that when the said writ petition is listed before the Court, the data as to whether any previous writ petition has been filed concerning the same impugned order is also placed before the Court.
The court stated that, “Such practice is adopted by this Court in criminal matters arising out of the same FIR and the said practice could be replicated in the tax roster as well, which would assist the Court as also counsels/litigants.”
The direction has been arrived at when dealing with the appeal of the owner of the firm aggrieved by a demand of over Rs. 550 crores, raised against various firms, including the applicant.
Read Also: Delhi High Court Rejects GST Writ Over Fraudulent ITC, Grants One Month for Appeal with Pre-Deposit
The case involved 286 entities, including the applicants’ Firm.
The High Court said that the impugned order had been challenged before it in M/S Montage Enterprises Private Limited & Ors. Vs. Central Goods and Services Tax Delhi North & Ors. (W.P.(C) 4774/2025) and the case had already been relegated to the Appellate Remedy.
“It is expected that the ld. Counsel ought to have been fair and informed that the Court has already taken a view in respect of the same impugned order,” the Court mentioned and declined to interfere in the matter.
| Case Title | Purshottam Ray vs. Principal Commissioner of CGST |
| Case No. | W.P.(C) 15118/2025 & CM APPL. 62123/2025 |
| For Petitioner | Mr. Mohit Pugalia Mr. Lalitendra Gulani Mr. Tanuj Kumar Takkar Advs |
| For Respondent | Mr. Arjun Malik, SSC for CBIC |
| Delhi High Court | Read Order |
