Case Name: Pret Study by Janak Fashions Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner, Division MCIE, CGST Delhi East
Court: Delhi High Court
Petition No.: W.P.(C) 5878/2025
Relevant Sections: Sections 74, 50, 122(2)(b), 122(1)(vii), 122(3)(d), 125 of CGST Act, 2017; corresponding provisions of DGST Act, 2017; Section 20 of IGST Act, 2017
Category of Dispute: Input Tax Credit
Date of Judgement: 05.05.2025
Facts of the Case
[Para 2–6]
-
The Petitioner, M/s Pret Study by Janak Fashions Pvt. Ltd., challenged the order dated 28.01.2025 confirming wrongful Input Tax Credit (ITC) of ₹34,92,903/- with equal penalty and interest.
-
Personal hearings were scheduled for 13th–15th January 2025. The Petitioner only attempted to join on 15th Jan 2025, allegedly for seeking adjournment but was not granted access.
-
No reply was filed to the Show Cause Notice dated 03.08.2024 despite a notice dated 08.01.2025 granting hearing opportunity.
-
The Petitioner made no further attempt to file a reply physically or digitally.
Question(s) in Consideration
[Para 2, 9–10]
-
Whether the impugned adjudication order warrants interference under Article 226 of the Constitution for alleged denial of personal hearing.
-
Whether procedural lapse by Petitioner in replying to SCN and attending hearing justifies dismissal of writ petition.
Observation of Court
[Para 6–9]
-
The Court found that the Petitioner was not diligent. No reply was filed to SCN, and the attempt to attend the hearing was limited to a single day without follow-up.
-
The Department served both SCNs and personal hearing notices, and thus, followed due process.
-
The adjudicating authority passed the order two weeks after scheduled hearings, indicating no procedural haste or unfairness.
Judgement of the Court
[Para 9–11]
-
The High Court refused to interfere with the order under writ jurisdiction.
-
It held that the remedy lies in filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
-
The Petitioner was granted liberty to file appeal within 30 days along with pre-deposit. If done, the appellate authority shall consider the appeal on merits without dismissing it for delay.
Between Fine Lines
-
Failure to file reply and lack of diligence proved fatal for the Petitioner.
-
Court held that proper notice and opportunity were given.
-
Writ jurisdiction will not substitute for statutory appeal where adequate remedy exists.
-
Petitioner can still appeal the order within 30 days with pre-deposit.
-
Procedural fairness was upheld in Department’s conduct.
Summary of Referred Cases
No precedent cases were referred or cited by either party in the judgment.
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.”
