Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Renu Bhatnagar dismissed a writ petition challenging an order passed under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Bench directed the petitioner to deposit costs with the Delhi High Court Bar Association and granted time to avail the appellate remedy. The Court refused to entertain the petition, noting that the petitioner neither filed a reply nor attended personal hearings during the adjudication process. It held that the impugned order was passed within the limitation period and directed that, if the appeal was filed within the prescribed extended date along with the requisite pre-deposit, it should not be dismissed as time-barred but decided on merits.

The matter concerned allegations of fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) by certain firms found to be non-existent. The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging a Show Cause Notice dated 5 August 2024, the Order-in-Original dated 1 February 2025, and the related DRC-07 dated 9 February 2025.

Also Read: “A Society Engaged in Charitable Work Holds the Character of a Constructive Trust”: Supreme Court Says Registration Under Societies Act Doesn’t Diminish Public Trust Nature

The proceedings originated from an investigation into alleged issuance of invoices without actual supply of goods by two individuals, identified as Mr. Rajesh Jindal and Mr. Adesh Jain. According to the record, these individuals allegedly created, controlled, and managed numerous fake firms in the names of persons under their control, who were not genuine businesspersons or entities. The investigation revealed that these firms passed on inadmissible ITC to various other entities, including the petitioner.

Searches were conducted on 31 July 2018 at several premises connected to the two individuals. The Central Goods and Service Tax Department seized documents, digital devices, and other materials. Statements of both individuals and various persons alleged to be connected with the petitioner were recorded.

The investigation findings indicated that many of the firms were dummy or fake, with transportation records showing registration numbers of scooters and three-wheelers, which could not have carried the types of goods claimed. The total alleged fraudulently availed ITC amounted to Rs. 50.33 crores.

The impugned order recorded that personal hearings were scheduled for 21 November 2024, 16 December 2024, and 26 December 2024. Replies were received from Noticee Nos. 14, 70, and 86, but the rest, including the petitioner (Noticee No. 15), neither attended hearings nor filed replies. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the GST registration was suspended since 3 February 2022, preventing reply filing, and that the petitioner was not a frequent visitor to the GST portal.

The Court recorded that "it is a matter of practice of the GST Department that the notices for personal hearing and notices for replies to be filed are all uploaded on the GST Portal." It stated that the petitioner was "well aware of the complete investigation that was going on against him" and that "such callous conduct on behalf of the Petitioner cannot be condoned by the Court where the Petitioner chooses not to even participate in the proceedings in any manner whatsoever."

Regarding the contention that the order was passed belatedly, the Court noted: "A perusal of the impugned order would itself show that the same was signed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST (North) on 1st February, 2025 and has been dated 1st February, 2025. The DRC-07 may have been uploaded on 9th February, 2025. However, it cannot be held that the impugned order was passed outside the period of limitation."

Also Read: J&K High Court Quashes Covid Lockdown Protest Case | Says FIR Against Three Villagers Was Frivolous And Aimed To Harass

The Court concluded that, given the facts, it was not inclined to entertain the writ petition.

The Court dismissed the writ petition along with all pending applications, imposing a cost of Rs. 50,000 to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Bar Association within two weeks. The order specified the account details of the Bar Association for the deposit. The Bench also recorded the submission of the petitioner’s counsel seeking permission to avail the appellate remedy, noting that the petition was filed within the limitation period prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017.

It directed that the petitioner was granted time until 31 August 2025 to file an appeal. The Court further directed that "if the appeal is filed by 31st August, 2025 along with the requisite pre-deposit, the same shall not be dismissed being barred by limitation and the same shall be decided on merits."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar and Mr. Parveen Kumar Gambhir, Advocates

For the Respondents: Mr. Sumit K. Batra, Advocate

Case Title: Ganpati Polymers Through Its Proprietor Prop. Ankur Jain v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Another

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:6698-DB

Case Number: W.P.(C) 11906/2025

Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh, Justice Renu Bhatnagar