‘Not a Frequent Visitor to GST Portal’: Delhi HC Imposes ₹50K Cost for Skipping Hearings in Fraudulent ITC Availment Case [Read Order]

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Ganpati Polymers, imposing costs of Rs. 50,000 for failing to attend personal hearings despite notices being uploaded on the GST portal in a case involving alleged fraudulent availment of input tax credit (ITC).

Ganpati Polymers, through its proprietor Ankur Jain, had approached the court challenging a show cause notice dated 5 August 2024, the order-in-original dated 1 February 2025, and a DRC-07 dated 9 February 2025.

The proceedings arose from an investigation into an alleged fake invoicing network linked to two individuals, Rajesh Jindal and Adesh Jain, who were accused of issuing invoices without any actual supply of goods. The department alleged that multiple entities including the petitioner had availed and utilised ineligible ITC, pegged at over Rs. 50 crore.

Understanding Common Mode of Tax Evasion with Practical Scenarios, Click Here

Searches were conducted on 31 July 2018 at several locations connected to the accused, during which documents and devices were seized, and statements were recorded. The investigation pointed to the use of vehicle numbers belonging to scooters and three-wheelers for transporting goods of significant quantity, which the department claimed was implausible.

Show cause notices were issued to multiple noticees, including Ganpati Polymers, and personal hearings were fixed for 21 November 2024, 16 December 2024, and 26 December 2024. Some noticees attended but the petitioner neither filed a reply nor appeared for any hearing.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the GST registration had been suspended from 3 February 2022, the petitioner was not a frequent visitor to the GST portal and was unaware of the hearing dates. It was further argued that the order-in-original was time-barred, as the DRC-07 was uploaded on 9 February 2025.

The respondent’s counsel argued that the petitioner was aware of the investigation and was given multiple opportunities to respond but chose not to participate. On limitation, it was argued that the order was dated and signed on 1 February 2025, and the subsequent upload of the DRC-07 did not mean the order was passed beyond the statutory time limit.

Understanding Common Mode of Tax Evasion with Practical Scenarios, Click Here

The Bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed that the petitioner’s explanation of being unaware due to not visiting the portal regularly could not justify complete non-participation. On the limitation argument, the court pointed out that the order bore the date of 1 February 2025, and the later DRC-07 upload date did not make it belated.

Finding no reason to interfere at this stage, the court dismissed the writ petition with costs of Rs. 50,000 to be paid to the Delhi High Court Bar Association within two weeks, with bank details provided in the order.

The court permitted the petitioner to avail the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act by 31 August 2025, and directed that if the appeal is filed with the required pre-deposit by that date, it will not be treated as time-barred and will be decided on its merits.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates