Case Details: Sharad Narula Versus Union of India (2025) 31 Centax 210 (Del.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Pratibha M. Singh & Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, JJ.
- S/Shri Rajesh Banati, Ankit Banati & Vikas Maini, Advs. for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri Aditya Singla, SSC, Ms Shreya Lamba & Umang Mishra, Advs. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, challenging an order issued by the Office of the Principal Commissioner under section 74 of the CGST Act and section 74 of the Delhi GST Act, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner submitted that no show cause notice (SCN) had been issued or uploaded on the designated portal and that no notice for personal hearing was received. The matter involved allegations of fraudulent availment of input tax credit (ITC) exceeding Rs. 100 crores, with several parties acting in collusion. Four other petitions arising from the same SCN were also listed before the Court on the same day. The SCN and entire set of relied upon documents had been emailed to one of the co-petitioners. Despite this, the petitioner falsely claimed that no SCN was issued, thereby concealing material facts.
The impugned adjudication order further indicated that notices for personal hearing had been issued and that certain parties had also appeared. Based on this sequence of facts, the matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the petitioner had deliberately concealed receipt of the SCN and misled the Court by denying its issuance. On perusal of the connected matters, it was evident that the SCN and relevant documents were duly served via email, and the adjudication record confirmed issuance of hearing notices and appearance by some parties. In light of the petitioner’s suppression and availability of a statutory remedy, the Court refused to invoke its writ jurisdiction. It held that the petitioner may approach the appellate authority under section 107 of the CGST Act.
