The Delhi High Court has imposed the penalty of Rs. 1 Lakh on the Exide Industries for not responding to GST notice but has quashed the Rs. 12 crore GST demand.
The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta has observed that the repeated personal hearing notices which have been issued. Clearly, there has been a laxity by the Petitioner. However, the CGST Assistant Commissioner also could have put the Petitioner to terms and not have passed a detailed order raising a substantial demand running into more than Rs.12 crores including the recovery of ineligible ITC and penalty of Rs.6,34,61,579.
The Petitioner, Exide Industries Limited has challenged the order along with the Form GST DRC-07 dated 4th February 2025 which has been passed by the Adjudicating Authority.
There are various allegations in the order and a demand has been raised on the ground that ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC) was availed of by the Petitioner.
The show cause notice (SCN) was issued. The Petitioner filed the reply to the SCN. Thereafter, the personal hearing was scheduled. But the case of the Petitioner is that the hearing notice was not received by the Petitioner.
The next hearing was fixed, for which, an extension was sought by the Petitioner. Again, a notice for personal hearing was served and according to the Petitioner, the notice was received on the date of the hearing itself.
The Petitioner stated to have visited the Respondent’s office. However, without giving any further hearing, the order has been passed.
The court noted that the Petitioner has not been afforded a hearing though some attempts were made by the Petitioner to thereafter approach the CGST Assistant Commissioner’s office, there would be breach of natural justice.
However, due to the laxity of the Petitioner, a sum of Rs.1 lakh is imposed as costs to be contributed to the Delhi High Court Bar Association.
Case Details
Case Title: Exide Industries Limited Versus CGST Assistant Commissioner
Case No.: W.P.(C) 4822/2025 & CM APPLs. 22130/2025, 22131/2025
Date: 17/04/2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Gajendra Maheshwari
Counsel For Respondent: R. Ramachandran
- MBA Finance vs CA: Career Roles, Skills, Salary Comparison - July 26, 2025
- New Recruitment Rules for Junior Accounts Officer in MSME Dept. - July 26, 2025
- 250% Return From SGB 2017-18 Series II - July 26, 2025
