Delhi High Court – Orders
Benito Operations And Technologies … vs Deputy Excise And Taxation … on 1 May, 2025
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~84
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5712/2025 & CM APPL. 26041/2025
BENITO OPERATIONS AND TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Ms. Nidhi Gupta
& Ms. Anunay Mishra, Advocates (M-
9810854786).
versus
DEPUTY EXCISE AND TAXATION COMMISSIONER ST
GURGAON NORTH .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Monica Benjamin SSC Ms. Nancy
Jain, Advocate.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
ORDER
% 01.05.2025
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CM APPL. 26042/2025 (for exemption)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 5712/2025 & CM APPL. 26041/2025
3. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- Benito Operations
& Technologies Pvt. Ltd. under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
challenging the order dated 6th March, 2025 as also the order dated 18th
April, 2025 (hereinafter, ‘the impugned orders’), issued by the Deputy Excise
& Taxation Commissioner (State Tax) Gurgaon North.
4. The Petitioner herein is a company registered in Delhi, bearing GST
Registration Number : 07AAMCB8784B1ZE. The Petitioner company has
W.P.(C) 5712/2025 Page 1 of 6
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 26/06/2025 at 10:24:27
filed the present petition challenging the impugned orders wherein the bank
account of the Petitioner being Account No. 53105135385 maintained at the
Standard Chartered Bank, DLF Building No. 7A, Gurgaon and Account No.
50200099256239 at HDFC Bank, Manesar, Gurgaon are sought to be
attached.
5. The brief background of the matter is that an investigation was
commenced against one M/s Wings Operations and Technology India Pvt.
Limited which was promoted by two Directors, Ms. Kiran Gupta and Mr.
Aashish Deep Bansal. The said company M/s Wings Operations and
Technology India Pvt. Limited was investigated by the Goods & Services
Tax, Excise & Taxation Department, Government of Haryana, and an
adjudication order dated 2nd April, 2025 was passed against the said company.
The extract of the said order reads as under:
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Based on the foregoing:
The Noticee availed ITC of Rs. 1,33,20,000/- without actual
receipt of services, violating Section 16.
Refunds of Rs. 1,33,20,000/- were erroneously claimed,
necessitating recovery under Section 74.
Suppression with intent to evade tax is established, justifying
Section 74. Interest and penalty are warranted under Sections
50 and 74.
ORDER
Under Section 74(9) of the CGST/HGST Act, 2017, I confirm
the demand as follows:
FY 2022-23:
W.P.(C) 5712/2025 Page 2 of 6
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 26/06/2025 at 10:24:27
FY 2023-24:
6. The above adjudication order dated 2nd April, 2025 order has been
challenged in appeal by M/s. Wings Operations and Technology India Pvt.
Limited under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act,
2017 read with Rule 108 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The said appeal has been
filed before the Appellate Authority, Gurgaon, on 15th April, 2025.
7. The details of the filing of the said appeal have been placed on record
in the present petition as “Annexure P-8”. In terms of the same, the mandatory
pre-deposit under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, is stated to have been
made by M/s Wings Operations and Technology India Pvt. Limited.
8. Despite this being the position, the grievance of the Petitioner herein is
that the impugned orders have been passed by the Deputy Excise & Taxation
Commissioner (State Tax) Gurgaon North, dated 6th March, 2025 and 18th
April, 2025, attaching the bank accounts of the Petitioner i.e., Benito
Operations & Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
9. Submission of the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is that once an appeal
has been filed along with the mandatory pre-deposit in terms of Section 107(6)
of the CGST Act, 2017, the impugned order is automatically stayed under
Section 107(7) of the Act.
10. The Court has considered the matter. A perusal of the adjudication
order dated 2nd April, 2025 would show that the allegation of the Goods &
W.P.(C) 5712/2025 Page 3 of 6
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 26/06/2025 at 10:24:27
Services Tax, Excise & Taxation Department, Government of Haryana is that
the Petitioner’s company has been incorporated for the purposes of avoiding
the payment of tax. The relevant observations are set below:
“In addition to above in the light of following observations
1. The taxpayer deliberately ignored a summons issued under
Section 70 and didn’t respond to a tax payment notice in Form
DRC-01 A. They also failed to reply to a Show Cause Notice in
DRC-01. Only after their bank account was frozen under
Section 83 of the HGST Act, 2017, did they participate in the
proceedings and submit a response. To avoid paying taxes
owed to the Haryana state and central government, the
taxpayer registered a new company called M/s Benito
Operations & Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (GSTIN:
07AAMCB8784B1ZE) under the SGST Act, 2017, and CGST
Act, 2017, effective from October 11,2024. This new
registration happened after an inquiry began against their
original company, M/s Wing Operations & Technologies
India Pvt. Ltd., suggesting it was a move to dodge the tax
demand issued to the original firm in DRC- 01.
2. Moreover, the directors and shareholder of M/s Wing
Operations & Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Benito
Operations & Technologies Pvt. Ltd. GSTIN:
07AAMCB8784B1ZE are same persons namely Mrs. KIRAN
GUPTA & Mr. ASH1SH DEEP BANSAL and section 89 of
HGST Act, 2017 & CGST Act, 2017 provide for the liability of
director of private company.
3. The modus of operandi of both the taxpayers is similar. It is
also observed that most of the suppliers & recipients of both the
said taxpayers are same. At the same time, M/s Shyam Avtar
(GSTIN: 07AACCR5195E2ZA) is common supplier to the
abovementioned taxpayers.”
11. It appears that under these circumstances, the impugned orders
attaching bank accounts of the Petitioner company have been issued.
W.P.(C) 5712/2025 Page 4 of 6
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 26/06/2025 at 10:24:27
However, it is evident that parallel to the issuance of the impugned
orders, M/s Wings Operations and Technology India Pvt. Limited has
also filed an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, along
with the mandatory pre- deposit which may not have been in the
knowledge of the Goods & Services Tax, Excise & Taxation
Department, Government of Haryana.
12. The question that also arises for consideration of this Court is
whether any attachment in terms of Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act,
2017 can be carried out under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, once
an appeal has been filed along with the mandatory pre-deposit.
13. This Court is of the opinion that all these issues require
consideration.
14. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner also submits that this Court has
territorial jurisdiction in the present case in view of the fact that the
Petitioner Company is registered in Delhi, having bank accounts in
Gurgaon.
15. The Petitioner further relies upon the decision of the Calcutta
High Court dated 21st December, 2023, in Arramva Corporation Vs.
Additional Director General [WPA No. 19463 of 2023] wherein it was
held as follows:
“Considering the submission of the parties and relevant provisions of
law under CGST Act and Rules, 2017, relevant circulars and
notifications and the judgments cited by the parties I am of the
considered view that so far as objection of the respondents with regard
to maintainability of the writ petition before this Court on the ground
of lack of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, is not sustainable since
cause of action is a bundle of fact and in the facts and circumstances
of the present case I am of the considered view that part of cause ofW.P.(C) 5712/2025 Page 5 of 6
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 26/06/2025 at 10:24:27
action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court since
petitioner’s bank account in Kolkata was attached though may it be
by an authority in Guwahati and in view of the fact that petitioner is
a registered person in Kolkata and as such writ petition before this
Court against the impugned order passed by the authority at
Guwahati is maintainable.”
16. Issue Notice. Ms. Monika Benjamin, Senior Standing Counsel
who generally appears for the Central GST Department is requested to
contact the Respondent- Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner
(ST) Gurgaon North and inform them of the order passed by this Court
today.
17. In the meantime, the impugned orders dated 6th March, 2025 and
18th April, 2025, attaching the bank accounts of the Petitioner shall
remain stayed. The concerned banks shall accordingly give effect to the
order passed by this Court upon a copy of the order being produced.
18. List on 18th August, 2025.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
MAY 1, 2025/da/ss
W.P.(C) 5712/2025 Page 6 of 6
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 26/06/2025 at 10:24:27