The Delhi High Court has disposed of a batch of 21 writ petitions arising from a single DGGI investigation involving 629 firms, with aggregate penalties running into hundreds of crores of rupees — the lead petitioner’s DRC-07 alone reflected approximately Rs. 2,27,72,13,235.
Following its own ruling in Gaurav Jain & Anr. v. Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II) [2026:DHC:6124-DB], the court held that the substituted proviso to Section 107(6), which came into force on 01.10.2025, does not govern appeals arising from proceedings initiated by SCNs issued prior to that date. Since all SCNs in the batch were issued on 30.06.2025, the pre-amendment pre-deposit requirement applies.
On the question whether DGGI officers could issue SCNs under Section 122 before the CBIC Circular dated 27.10.2025 specifically assigned them, the court held that this does not disclose a “patent or self-evident absence of jurisdiction” when read with Notification Nos. 02 and 14 of 2017-Central Tax. The Circular was understood as clarificatory in the context of the Finance Act 2024 amendments.
The court left open the question whether Section 122(1) — which predicates liability on a “taxable person” — can be invoked against persons who are neither registered nor liable to be registered. This issue is pending before the Supreme Court in Mukesh Kumar Garg v. Union of India & Ors. [SLP(C) No. 18178/2025].
All petitioners were relegated to the statutory remedy under Section 107 with liberty to raise all grounds before the appellate authority.
Rohit Garg & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. | Batch of 21 Writ Petitions (lead: WP(C) 7287/2026) | 7 September 2026 | Delhi HC