Devender Singh v Additional Commissioner, Central: Delhi HC, Cross-Examination

This case study covers the Delhi High Court's judgment of 6 November 2025 in a writ petition by Devender Singh against the Additional Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, Delhi West. The petitioner challenged an Order-in-Original that raised demands against him over an alleged network of fake firms availing ineligible Input Tax Credit. It is relevant to Section 122 because the petitioner contested penalty under Section 122(1) on several grounds. The part of the judgment reproduced in the source centres on whether denying him cross-examination of co-noticees breached natural justice.

This page is a research summary of one specific Indian tax judgment, NOT legal advice. Always verify against the full judgment and consult a professional for case-specific guidance.

---

The case at a glance

• Parties: Devender Singh vs Additional Commissioner, Central
• Bench: Delhi High Court
• Date: 6 November 2025
• Court level: High Court
• Sections engaged: 122(1)
• Outcome: Revenue succeeded

---

Facts of the case

The petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It challenged an Order-in-Original dated 28th July 2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST Delhi West Commissionerate, which raised demands against the petitioner. This was the petitioner's second round before the High Court. A Show Cause Notice dated 17th August 2023 alleged that 41 firms were fraudulently availing ITC without actual receipt of goods. According to the source, search and investigation indicated that the petitioner and his son, Mr. Pawandeep Sachdeva, were operating several non-existent and bogus firms. Twelve of these were named, including M/s Kanishk Exports, M/s Krishna International and M/s Arshad Trade Impex.

The investigation further alleged that, apart from the 41 exporting firms, there were 116 fake firms. These shared common mobile numbers, email IDs, IP addresses and overlapping directors, and were traced to the same devices at Azadpur and Civil Lines. The circular transactions were allegedly carried out to create invoices without any actual supply of goods or services, so that ITC could be claimed. The petitioner was alleged to be one of the two key persons who implemented the network. Statements of several persons, including Mr. Tinku Yadav and Mr. Govind Sharma, were recorded before the SCN was issued.

An earlier Order-in-Original dated 31st January 2025 was passed against 132 firms and co-noticees. The petitioner challenged it in W.P.(C) 1958/2025, alleging that no notice of hearing had been served on him or his son. The Revenue's counsel told the Court that no e-mail communications were sent and that the Speed Post notices did not appear to have been served in time. The Court quashed the 31st January 2025 order and allowed proceedings afresh from the stage of the SCN, with an opportunity of hearing. All rights and contentions on merits were kept open. The Order-in-Original of 28th July 2025, now under challenge, followed.

---

Issues raised

• Whether penalty could be imposed on the petitioner under Section 122(1) of the CGST Act. The petitioner argued that, as only a director or partner of the firms, he was not a "taxable person".
• Whether the rejection of the petitioner's request to cross-examine co-noticees violated principles of natural justice.
• Whether the SCN and the impugned order were liable to be quashed because no "proper officer" had been assigned for Section 122 until a circular dated 27th October 2025 designated one.
• Whether the petitioner could raise fresh grounds against the SCN in the second round, when the earlier writ petition had been disposed of with only a direction to give a hearing. This was the Revenue's objection.

---

What the court held

The outcome was in favour of the Revenue. The part of the order reproduced in the source records the Court's reasoning on cross-examination. The petitioner himself was controlling the bank accounts of the firms, as well as the conduct of his own associates. On that footing, the Court held that no impingement of natural justice could be found in the refusal of cross-examination. The Court also noted that the petitioner had adequate opportunities to seek cross-examination even in the first round of litigation before it.

The Court further observed that the impugned order had dealt with the cross-examination issue in detail. It extracted the Adjudicating Authority's findings. Personal hearing was held on 21.07.2025 in virtual mode, and the petitioner's counsel attended. They reiterated a written submission dated 09.06.2025 and requested cross-examination of a few persons under a CBIC circular dated 10.03.2017. According to the extract, that circular pertains to the pre-GST era. The petitioner's role as alleged in the SCN, and his own statement recorded during the investigation, were discussed in the order from paragraph 10.2 onwards.

The Court's reasoning on the "taxable person" and "proper officer" contentions is not reproduced in the source text.

---

Strategy observations

1. The petitioner raised three grounds: the "taxable person" objection to Section 122(1) penalty, denial of cross-examination, and the absence of an assigned "proper officer" before the circular dated 27th October 2025.
2. The Revenue's counsel argued that no cross-examination request had been made in the first round. She also argued that the SCN and the first Order-in-Original had captured all the recorded statements.
3. The Revenue further submitted that the first writ petition was disposed of only with a direction to grant a hearing, so fresh grounds against the SCN could not be raised in the second round.
4. The Adjudicating Authority recorded that cross-examination had been requested by reference to a pre-GST circular. The Court extracted this finding in its reasoning.
5. The Court relied on the petitioner's own recorded statement and his control over the firms' bank accounts to reject the natural-justice objection.

---

Why this case matters

The judgment shows how the Delhi High Court treated a cross-examination objection in a GST fraud case alleging a network of bogus firms and circular trading. The Court did not treat the denial of cross-examination as a breach of natural justice where the noticee was alleged to have controlled the firms' bank accounts and associates. It also weighed the opportunities already available in the earlier round of litigation.

The case also illustrates a recurring litigation pattern. An order is quashed for lack of proper notice, proceedings restart from the SCN, and the noticee returns to the High Court against the fresh order. The Revenue's argument that fresh grounds cannot be raised after a remand limited to a hearing is part of that pattern. The source text reproduced here does not show how the Court answered that argument.

---

Source

This case is drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals. Original document: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/23018699/