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
Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Ballygunge Charge & Ors. v. Suncraft Energy Private Limited & Ors.
Challenge to High Court order relating to tax demand under GST; scope of interference under Article 136 of the Constitution (Provision involved: Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
Facts :The petitioners filed Special Leave Petitions challenging the judgment an...
Read MoreSamarpan Jain vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others
Whether an Advocate who files a statutory GST appeal on behalf of his client and makes pre-deposit of 10% of disputed tax from the client's Electronic Credit Ledger by utilizing Input Tax Credit — in accordance with his professional understanding of the
BACKGROUNDThe petitioner is an Advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of U.P., s...
Read MoreA.R. Steels vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner STL & Others
Whether a writ petition challenging a GST assessment order is maintainable when filed with inordinate and unexplained delay, on the ground that the petitioner could not access the GST portal due to cancellation of registration.
BACKGROUNDThe petitioner, a trader in iron and iron scrap, had its GST registrat...
Read More