The Gujarat High Court, in M/s Shivani Enterprise, Proprietor Vibhor Shivkumar Vaid v. Union of India & Others, considered whether a GST show cause notice and the consequent adjudication order should be set aside on the grounds that the complete notice and relied-upon documents were allegedly not supplied to the taxpayer. The matter arose from allegations concerning fraudulent availment of input tax credit in scrap-trading transactions.
The petitioner challenged the show cause notice dated 29 February 2024, the Order-in-Original dated 30 August 2025 and Form GST DRC-07 dated 11 September 2025. Penalties had been proposed under section 122(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, following departmental intelligence regarding input tax credit allegedly availed through transactions with M/s Ganpati Enterprises.
Background of the Dispute
The GST department had conducted physical verification of the petitioner’s declared business premises under section 67(1) of the CGST Act. According to the department, the premises were found to be an open space without business infrastructure. Proceedings were thereafter initiated in relation to alleged fake input tax credit passed through a supplier and availed by beneficiaries.
The petitioner contended that only three pages of the show cause notice had been supplied and that several relied-upon documents mentioned in the notice were not provided. It was further argued that certain documents were incorrectly described as relating to the period October 2021 to December 2021, even though the petitioner’s GST registration had already been cancelled with effect from 8 October 2020.
The department opposed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had an effective statutory remedy of appeal under section 107 of the CGST Act. It maintained that a complete copy of the notice had been dispatched, the petitioner had participated in the adjudication proceedings and no objection regarding receipt of an incomplete notice had been raised in the replies or during personal hearings.
Gujarat High Court’s Findings
The High Court noted that the petitioner had filed replies and had also been granted personal hearings during the adjudication proceedings. However, the allegation that only three pages of the show cause notice had been received was not raised before the adjudicating authority. The department had specifically denied the allegation and asserted that the complete notice had been dispatched to the petitioner’s declared address.
The Court held that the controversy concerning service of the complete notice involved appreciation of disputed facts. Such questions could appropriately be examined by the appellate authority under section 107 of the CGST Act rather than in writ jurisdiction.
On the issue concerning the period mentioned against the relied-upon documents, the department explained that reference to the year 2021 was an inadvertent error. The actual investigation and demand related to October 2018 to November 2019, covering financial years 2018-19 and 2019-20. The relevant GST returns, e-way bills and other records had been considered in the Order-in-Original.
The Court observed that the petitioner was aware of the relevant period and the documents forming the basis of the proceedings. It therefore declined to invalidate the notice and adjudication order merely because of the alleged typographical error regarding the year of the relied-upon documents.
Alternative Remedy and Writ Jurisdiction
A significant aspect of the decision is the Court’s emphasis on the statutory appellate remedy. The petitioner did not dispute the availability of an appeal under section 107 of the CGST Act. The High Court found that the issues raised involved factual examination and could effectively be considered by the appellate authority.
The Court further held that sufficient opportunity of hearing had been afforded to the petitioner and that no violation of the principles of natural justice or statutory provisions had been established. Consequently, the Court refused to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Decision
The Gujarat High Court rejected the writ petition and declined to interfere with the GST show cause notice, the Order-in-Original and Form GST DRC-07. The petitioner was left to pursue the statutory appellate remedy for examination of the factual and legal objections raised against the adjudication order.
The ruling indicates that a taxpayer who participates in adjudication proceedings without contemporaneously objecting to incomplete service of the notice or non-supply of documents may face difficulty in raising such objections for the first time in writ proceedings. It also reinforces that disputed factual questions concerning service, relied-upon documents and the evidentiary basis of a demand are ordinarily matters for the statutory appellate authority.
The complete judgment is attached below for download. Readers may refer to the attached PDF for the detailed facts, submissions of the parties, judicial reasoning and the operative order passed by the Gujarat High Court.