Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Bhandari Scrap Traders vs Union Of India on 24 July, 2026
SLP(C) No. 23931/2026 etc.
ITEM NO.26 COURT NO.8 SECTION III-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 23931/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 01-05-2026
in SCA No. 749/2025 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at
Ahmedabad]
BHANDARI SCRAP TRADERS Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 24088/2026 (III-B)
(FOR ADMISSION and IA No. 202573/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP(C) No. 24103/2026 (III-B)
(FOR ADMISSION)
Date : 24-07-2026 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
For Petitioner(s) :
Mr. Uchit Sheth, Adv.
Ms. Uchit Sheth, Adv.
Mr. Malak Manish Bhatt, AOR
Ms. Sukanya Joshi, Adv.
Ms. Somya Saxena, Adv.
Ms. Chhavi Tokas, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following
O R D E R
Though we are informed that a special leave petition has been
Signature Not Verified
entertained in relation to the decision of the Tripura High Court
Digitally signed by
Deepak Guglani
Date: 2026.07.27
19:48:35 IST
Reason:
1
SLP(C) No. 23931/2026 etc.
in Sahil Enterprises vs. Union of India & Ors.1, we find from the
judgment passed by the High Court of Tripura that the exercise
undertaken by the High Court of Gujarat in the judgment, presently
under challenge, was not undertaken by it.
The distinction and differences between the provisions of the
Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 20042, and the Central Goods and
Services Tax Act, 20173, brought out by way of a detailed analysis
from paragraph 42 onwards in the impugned judgment along with the
scheme of availing Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the GST regime, as
set out in paragraph 56 of the impugned judgment, clearly
demonstrate that there is no possibility of drawing parity between
the provisions of the two enactments, so as to treat a purchasing
dealer under the CGST Act on par with a purported bonafide
purchasing dealer under the Delhi VAT Act in relation to ITC, when
the supplier-dealer fails to pay the requisite tax.
Further, the High Court of Gujarat has also referred to the
provisions of Section 41 of the CGST Act and also Sections 73 and
74 thereof in the context of the purchasing dealer under the CGST
regime being entitled to re-avail the reversed ITC after the
supplier-dealer is made to discharge the tax liability.
In that view of the matter, the High Court was fully justified
in holding that no grounds were made out to declare Section 16(2)
(c) of the CGST Act as unconstitutional or read down the provisions
1 [(2026) 154 GSTR 108 (Tri.)]
2 “Delhi VAT Act”, for short
3 “CGST Act”, for short
2
SLP(C) No. 23931/2026 etc.
thereof. We find ourselves in complete and respectful agreement
with the views expressed by the High Court of Gujarat and affirm
and uphold the impugned judgment.
The special leave petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(DEEPAK GUGLANI) (PREETI SAXENA)
DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH)
3
