Case Details
-
Case Title: Maruti Enterprise through its Prop. Marsoniya Dhavalkumar Vijaybhai v. State of Gujarat
-
Court: High Court of Gujarat, Ahmedabad
-
Petition No.: Special Civil Application No. 6993 of 2025
-
Judgment Date: 03 July 2025
-
Relevant Sections: Section 74, Section 75(4), Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, 2017
-
Category of Dispute: Input Tax Credit (ITC) – denial on account of supplier being non-genuine
Facts of the Case (Para 3)
The petitioner purchased 370 bags of arecanuts from M/s K.S. Traders, West Bengal, on 11 March 2021. Later, the State Tax Officer alleged that the supplier was non-genuine, goods were not physically received, and ITC was wrongly availed. Intimation in Form DRC-01A was issued on 18.12.2023, followed by a show-cause notice in Form DRC-01 on 06.01.2024. However, the attachments explaining the grounds were not served. Despite filing a detailed reply with invoices, e-way bills, lorry receipts, bank statements, and ledger accounts (reply dated 10.01.2024), no personal hearing was granted. The Order-in-Original dated 19.01.2024 reversed ITC under Section 74 without considering petitioner’s evidence.
The appeal filed on 29.06.2024 was delayed by 71 days due to medical reasons and supported by a medical certificate. However, the Appellate Authority dismissed it on 18.11.2024 citing the bar under Section 107(4).
Questions / Dispute
-
Whether denial of ITC based on supplier’s cancellation of GST registration was valid without considering petitioner’s documents.
-
Whether failure to provide attachments to the SCN and denial of hearing vitiated the proceedings.
-
Whether rejection of appeal solely on the ground of delay, despite medical reasons, was legally sustainable.
Observations of the Court (Paras 6–7)
The Court noted that the SCN issued on 06.01.2024 was not accompanied by attachments setting out reasons. Moreover, the petitioner was denied an opportunity of personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act. These lapses constituted a breach of principles of natural justice. Without examining merits, the Court held that the foundation of the proceedings was defective.
Judgment (Paras 7–8)
The High Court quashed the Order-in-Original dated 19.01.2024 and directed the respondent officer to re-issue the SCN with proper attachments within four weeks. The petitioner must be allowed to file a detailed reply and be given a hearing. A fresh de novo order is to be passed within twelve weeks thereafter. The writ petition was allowed, and notice discharged.
Cases Referred – Tabular Summary
| Case | Citation / Court | Verdict / Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Maruti Enterprise v. State of Gujarat (present case) | Gujarat HC, SCA 6993/2025 | Order-in-Original quashed; SCN reissued with attachments and hearing mandated due to breach of natural justice. |
(No other external cases cited in this judgment.)
Between Fine Lines (Trade Takeaway)
This judgment underscores that GST demands cannot be sustained without serving complete SCN attachments and granting a personal hearing. Even where ITC is disputed due to supplier irregularities, the taxpayer’s right to defend with evidence is protected under Section 75(4). For businesses, this affirms that procedural lapses by tax authorities can invalidate entire proceedings, regardless of underlying merits.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
.){kind=link}