2026-VIL-717-PAT

SGST High Court Cases

GST - Service of notice on portal, Clean hand Doctrine, Ex-parte order - Demand for excess claim of Input Tax Credit - Petitioner challenge Show Cause Notice and summary of orders on ground of being ex-parte order and non-compliance with requirement of Section 169 of CGST Act as the Show Cause Notice was uploaded on GST portal under heading ‘Additional Notices and Orders’ tab which is not proper compliance - HELD – The petitioner is silent on merit on allegations that petitioner had availed huge amount of excess Input Tax Credit - Show Cause Notice in GST Form DRC-01 clearly states ITC as per GSTR-2A whereas ITC claimed in GSTR-3B was significantly higher – The Writ application is also silent on ground stated in Notice which talks of excess claim of Input Tax Credit and suppression of turnover - Despite clear assertion in summary of order that last reminder was sent on registered mail, petitioner has not made specific and categorical statement that no email was received by petitioner on registered email ID - Since petitioner is seeking quashing of SCN and summary of order, it was incumbent upon petitioner to state on fact actual accrual of ITC present in GSTR-2A – Further, the statement of petitioner that petitioner got information about bank attachment much later when he visited jurisdictional office of respondents and copies of notices and orders were obtained at even later date upon perusal of portal subsequent to signing of alleged undertaking letter is nothing but an afterthought - This writ application has been filed after three months from date of execution of undertaking and submission of three post-dated cheques - There is nothing on record to take view that for more than three months after execution of undertaking and submission of post-dated cheques, petitioner could not have raised any protest or preferred appeal against impugned SCN and impugned summary of order. This is not bonafide writ application. Writ remedy is meant for those who come clean before this Court - In facts of this case, plenary and discretionary jurisdiction of issuance of extraordinary writ is not fit to be exercised - Conduct of petitioner is such that it requires dismissal of writ application with cost - Writ application is dismissed with cost

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page