Mathur Polymers v. Union of India & Ors.
Facts :
The petitioner challenged the Order-in-Original dated 02.02.2025 on the ground that notices for personal hearing were not received. The Department produced records showing that hearing notices were sent to the registered email address of the petitioner as available on the GST portal. The petitioner also argued that a consolidated notice/order for multiple financial periods was impermissible. The dispute involved allegations relating to wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit.
Court Decision:
The Court held that service of notice through the registered email address under Section 169(1)(c) of the CGST Act constitutes valid service. It found that hearing notices were duly sent to the petitioner’s registered email and the plea of non-service was not sustainable. On the issue of consolidated proceedings, the Court held that in cases involving fraudulent ITC spanning multiple periods, issuance of consolidated notice/order is permissible under Sections 73 and 74. The Court found no violation of natural justice or jurisdictional error and dismissed the writ petition with costs.
Cases Referred:
- Rishi Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner Central Tax Delhi, North
- Mrs. Neelam Ajit Phatarpekar v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
- State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Caltex (India) Ltd.
- Bennet and White (Calgary) Ltd. v. Municipal District of Sugar City No. 5
- Titan Company Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
- Ambika Traders v. Additional Commissioner, Adjudication, DGGSTI
Other Case Law
Subir Ghosh v. The Deputy Commissioner (ST) & Ors.
Validity of bank attachment under Section 79(1)(c) read with Section 89(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 concerning recovery of company tax dues from director. Liability of director for company’s tax arrears and procedural requirement of adjudication before re
Case Facts:The petitioner challenged a bank attachment notice issued for recover...
Read MoreKing Enterprises vs. Union of India & Ors.
Validity of "negative blocking" of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017, i.e., blocking ITC in excess of the actual credit balance available in the Electronic Credit Ledger.
Background & Relevant FactsThe petitioner, King Enterprises, challenged an o...
Read MoreLaxmi Motors vs State of M.P. and Others
Appeal – Limitation for filing appeal under Sections 107(1) and 107(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 – computation of limitation period and exclusion of the first day under Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
Facts:The petitioner challenged the order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the Appella...
Read More