$~44 to 47 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010072742026 + W.P.(C) 2659/2026, CM APPL. 12954/2026 M/S NIDHI SALES CORPORATION .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Reena Khaire, Ms. Shreya Dahiya, Mr. Rustam Chaudhuri and Mr. Ankush Gupta, Advs. versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, ADJUDICATION, CGST DELHI WEST AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Samiksha Godiyal, SSC along with Mr. Tenzing Namgyal Bhutia and Mr. Rithwik Narayanan, Advs. Mr. Nitin Saluja, SSC along with Ms. Vasudha Singh and Ms. Pranya Madan, Advs. (45) # CNR No. DLHC010089892026 + W.P.(C) 3218/2026, CM APPL. 15477/2026, CM APPL. 15478/2026 M/S ANSH STEEL CRAFTS LLP .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Reena Khaire, Ms. Shreya Dahiya, Mr. Rustam Chaudhuri and Mr. Ankush Gupta, Advs. versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER ADJUDICATION, CGST DELHI WEST AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Samiksha Godiyal, SSC along with Mr. Tenzing Namgyal Bhutia and Mr. Rithwik Narayanan, Advs. Mr. Nitin Saluja, SSC along with Ms. Vasudha Singh and 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 01/10/2026 at 12:02:36 Ms. Pranya Madan, Advs. (46) # CNR No. DLHC010093492026 + W.P.(C) 3279/2026, CM APPL. 15881/2026, CM APPL. 15882/2026 SURESH KUMAR MITTAL PARTNER OF M/S ANSH STEEL CRAFTS LLP .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Reena Khaire, Ms. Shreya Dahiya, Mr. Rustam Chaudhuri and Mr. Ankush Gupta, Advs. versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER ADJUDICATION, CGST DELHI WEST AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Samiksha Godiyal, SSC along with Mr. Tenzing Namgyal Bhutia and Mr. Rithwik Narayanan, Advs. Mr. Nitin Saluja, SSC along with Ms. Vasudha Singh and Ms. Pranya Madan, Advs. (47) # CNR No. DLHC010094052026 + W.P.(C) 3299/2026, CM APPL. 15969/2026, CM APPL. 15970/2026 SHRI ASHISH MITTAL PROPRIETOR OF M/S NIDHI SALES CORPORATION .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Reena Khaire, Ms. Shreya Dahiya, Mr. Rustam Chaudhuri and Mr. Ankush Gupta, Advs. versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER ADJUDICATION, CGST DELHI WEST .....Respondent Through: Ms. Samiksha Godiyal, SSC along with Mr. Tenzing Namgyal Bhutia and Mr. 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 01/10/2026 at 12:02:36 Rithwik Narayanan, Advs. Mr. Nitin Saluja, SSC along with Ms. Vasudha Singh and Ms. Pranya Madan, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHARAT PARASHAR O R D E R % 29.09.2026 1. With the consent of learned counsel representing the parties, the present batch of four (04) Writ Petitions is being taken up for hearing and is being disposed of by this common order, as the issues arising in all these Petitions emanate from the same Impugned Order dated 26.12.2025. 2. At the outset, learned counsel representing the Petitioner fairly submits that the present cases arise out of the common Impugned Order dated 26.12.2025, whereby proceedings in respect of as many as 629 noticees have been adjudicated. It is further submitted that several connected Writ Petitions challenging the said common order have already been considered by this Court. 3. In particular, learned counsel representing the Petitioners submits that this Court, vide judgment dated 07.09.2026 passed in W.P.(C) No. 8829/2026, titled Rohit Garg vs. Union of India and Ors. along with other connected matters, has relegated the concerned parties to the statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order dated 26.12.2025. 4. Learned counsel, however, submits that, in respect of two notices arising out of proceedings concerning the same adjudication, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has adopted a different course and 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 01/10/2026 at 12:02:36 has remitted the matter to the original adjudicating authority. On this basis, it is urged that a similar course may be adopted in the present Petitions. 5. This Court has considered the aforesaid submission. The distinguishing feature which emerges in the present batch is that the Impugned Order dated 26.12.2025 is a common order passed in respect of more than six hundred (600) noticees. The challenge in the present Petitions, therefore, has to be considered in the context of the nature and scope of the common adjudication and the availability of the statutory appellate remedy. 6. It is also relevant to notice that, in the Impugned Order, a finding has been returned against the Petitioner-Firm to the effect that invoices were issued without actual supply of goods/material, thereby facilitating availment/generation of Input Tax Credit (‘ITC’) amounting to Rs.2,31,36,877/-. 7. The aforesaid finding has, inter alia, been returned after consideration of the statement of Mr. Suresh Kumar Mittal, who is stated to be a Partner of the Petitioner-Firm. Thus, the challenge raised by the Petitioners involves appreciation and examination of the factual findings recorded by the adjudicating authority, including the material relied upon in arriving at the aforesaid conclusion. 8. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, and particularly having regard to the fact that the impugned order dated 26.12.2025 is a common adjudication order covering a large number of noticees, this Court is of the view that the Petitioners ought to avail the statutory remedy of appeal against the Impugned Order. 9. Accordingly, the Petitioners are relegated to the remedy of appeal available to them in accordance with law. All questions of fact 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 01/10/2026 at 12:02:36 and law, including the correctness of the findings recorded in the impugned order and the evidentiary material relied upon by the adjudicating authority, are left open to be considered by the competent appellate authority in accordance with law. 10. Learned counsel representing the Petitioners submits that, since the present Writ Petitions have remained pending before this Court, the period spent in pursuing the present proceedings may be excluded while computing the period of limitation for filing the statutory appeal. 11. If so advised, the Petitioners shall be at liberty to file an appropriate application before the competent appellate authority seeking exclusion of the period during which the present Writ Petitions remained pending before this Court. Needless to say, such application shall be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law. 12. Learned counsel representing the Petitioners further submits that the Petitioners may be permitted to avail the benefit of the judgment dated 31.07.2026 passed by this Bench in W.P.(C) No. 8414/2026, titled Gaurav Jain & Anr. v. Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II) CGST Delhi Zone & Anr., insofar as the requirement of pre-deposit for maintaining the statutory appeal is concerned. 13. It is submitted that the proceedings against the Petitioners were initiated prior to 01.10.2025 and that the Petitioners have been subjected only to penalty proceedings and no tax liability has been fastened upon them. On these grounds, learned counsel submits that the Petitioners should not be required to make the pre-deposit contemplated under the applicable statutory provisions, in terms of the aforesaid judgment of this Court. 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 01/10/2026 at 12:02:36 14. Having regard to the aforesaid submission, the Petitioners shall be entitled to avail the benefit, if otherwise applicable, of the judgment dated 31.07.2026 passed by this Bench in Gaurav Jain (supra). The competent appellate authority shall consider the Petitioners’ claim in accordance with the said judgment and applicable law. 15. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the Petitioners’ challenge to the Impugned Order dated 26.12.2025. All rights and contentions of the parties on merits are left open to be urged before and considered by the competent appellate authority in accordance with law. 16. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present batch of Writ Petitions, along with all pending applications, stands disposed of. 17. A photocopy of the order passed today be kept in the connected matters. ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. BHARAT PARASHAR, J. SEPTEMBER 29, 2026 s.godara/pal 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 01/10/2026 at 12:02:36