The Delhi High Court has held that a writ court, in exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction, cannot undertake a re-appreciation of facts to determine the legality of a GST corrigendum when an efficacious alternative remedy is available. The Bench, comprising Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul, observed that mere disagreement with the findings of an adjudicating authority regarding the scope of a rectification under Section 161 of the CGST Act does not warrant the invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Background
The petitioner, Manpar Icon Technologies, challenged an Order-in-Original dated December 29, 2025, which confirmed a demand of ₹42,66,108/-. The dispute arose after the tax authorities issued a show cause notice (SCN) on June 28, 2025, alleging wrongful Input Tax Credit (ITC) utilization for the Financial Year (FY) 2018-2019 based on an alert regarding a non-existent firm, M/S Advanta Sales.
After the petitioner clarified that they only dealt with the supplier in FY 2019-2020, the respondent issued a corrigendum on December 22, 2025, amending the assessment period to include both FY 2018-2019 and FY 2019-2020. The petitioner contended that this corrigendum was an illegal attempt to initiate fresh proceedings for a year that was already time-barred.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Submissions: Counsel for the petitioner argued that the corrigendum was “ex-facie erroneous” and “bad in law” because:
- It sought to create a fresh liability by including FY 2019-2020, which exceeds the narrow scope of Section 161 of the CGST Act (limited to clerical or arithmetic errors).
- It was a mala-fide attempt to circumvent the statutory limitation period for FY 2019-2020, which had expired on September 30, 2025.
- The proper officer became functus officio after the limitation expired and could not “resurrect a dead cause of action.”
Respondent’s Submissions: The Revenue argued that the petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an appellate remedy under Section 107. On merits, they contended:
- The corrigendum did not introduce new transactions but merely corrected the “tax period under adjudication” to reflect the actual transactions already under investigation.
- Typographical errors regarding the financial year do not amount to a fresh show cause notice.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Court focused on the limits of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226. It noted that while the Court has plenary powers, it must refrain from interference when a statutory remedy exists, unless there is a patent error of law or jurisdictional excess.
The Court made a critical finding regarding the nature of the challenge:
“This Court, in exercise of a writ of Certiorari is in a supervisory jurisdiction, and not an appellate court. This difference is of vital importance as this Court, thus, cannot enter into questions of reappreciation of facts, which have been decided by trial courts/tribunals, etc.”
On the issue of the corrigendum’s legality under Sections 160 and 161 of the CGST Act, the Court observed:
“The contention of the petitioner that the corrigendum is bad in law would require an examination of the nature of the correction and the material on record. Such an exercise would involve the appreciation of facts and is not to be undertaken in proceedings under Article 226, particularly within the limited scope of certiorari jurisdiction.”
The Court further held that the adjudicating authority had already addressed these aspects in the impugned order, and a disagreement with those conclusions must be addressed through the proper appellate channel.
Decision
The Bench concluded that Section 107 of the CGST Act, read with Rule 109A, provides the “ordinary statutory recourse” for such grievances.
“In such circumstances, mere disagreement with the conclusions drawn by the adjudicating authority would not, by itself, be a ground to bypass the statutory remedy and invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court.”
The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. The Court emphasized that it had not examined the merits of the case.
Case Details
Case Title: Manpar Icon Technologies Through its Partner, Sh. Parag Garg v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division Kirti Nagar & Anr.
Case No.: W.P.(C) 1993/2026 & CM APPL. 9688/2026
Bench: Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul
Date: April 13, 2026
