Delhi HC Sets Aside ₹12 Crore GST Demand On Exide Industries But Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost For Laxity In Responding To Hearing Notices
The Delhi High Court has set aside a GST demand of over ₹12 crores raised on storage battery manufacturer Exide Industries, for wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta however imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on the Indian multinational for “laxity” in responding to the repeated hearing notices issued by the...
The Delhi High Court has set aside a GST demand of over ₹12 crores raised on storage battery manufacturer Exide Industries, for wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta however imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on the Indian multinational for “laxity” in responding to the repeated hearing notices issued by the Department.
The petition was filed by the company assailing final order and Form DRC-07 issued by the Adjudicating Authority to recover alleged GST dues.
The show cause notice was issued on 17th May, 2024. The Petitioner filed the reply to the SCN on 10th June, 2024. Thereafter, the personal hearing was scheduled on 20th November, 2024. But the case of the Petitioner is that the said hearing notice was not received by the Petitioner.
The next hearing was fixed on 5th December, 2024, for which, an extension was sought by the Petitioner for 19th December, 2024. Again, a notice for personal hearing on 16th December, 2024 was served and according to the Petitioner, the notice was received on the date of the hearing itself.
Thereafter, the Petitioner's representatives then visited the Respondent's office. However, it is alleged that without giving any further hearing, the impugned order was passed.
The Court has perused the repeated personal hearing notices which were issued to the Petitioner and observed, “Clearly, there has been a laxity by the Petitioner.”
However, considering that the Petitioner had not been afforded a hearing though some attempts were made by it to approach the Department's office, Court said there would be breach of natural justice.
Thus, it set aside the impugned demand subject to Petitioner depositing ₹1 lakh cost with the Delhi High Court Bar Association and directed the Adjudicating Authority to issue a fresh hearing notice.
Appearance: Mr. Gajendra Maheshwari, Mr. Siddharth Punj & Ms. Priyamwada Sinha, Advs for Petitioner; Mr. R. Ramachandran, SSC with Mr. Prateek Dhir, Adv for Respondent
Case title: Exide Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 468
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4822/2025