Delhi HC Rejects GST Plea: Taxpayer Cannot Blame CA for Missing Show Cause Notices:

Delhi HC Rejects GST Plea: Taxpayer Cannot Blame CA for Missing Show Cause Notices A company filed writ petitions in the Delhi High Court, challenging GST tax orders, blaming its Chartered Accountant for missing notices. However, on hearing the case, the court found the petitioner negligent, rejected shifting blame, refused relief despitea partial payment offer, and dismissed all writ petitions for lacking merit. The company, Fone Zone NXT, has filed the present writ petitions in the Delhi High Court against the GST authorities. As all the petitioners were based on similar issues, the court issued a single order listening to all the petitions simultaneously and treated W.P.(C) 888/2026 as the key dispute. The petitioner requested the Court to remove the provisional attachment on his bank accounts, allow him to appeal against an earlier tax order dated December 25, 2023, and announce appropriate directions as per the interest of justice. The petitioner is engaged in the business of mobile phones and allied accessories. He obtained GST registration for his business on July 01, 2017. He regularly filed GST returns. The petitioner further claimed that the GST portal included the email address of his Chartered Accountant, and he was not aware of the key tax notices issued addressed to him, as the CA did not inform him. This is the reason why he could neither answer them nor attend the personal hearings. This resulted in tax demands and the issuance of an ex parte order under Section 73 of the DGST Act for mismatched ITC and supplier registration issues. The petitioner stated that he should not be punished for the failure of his Chartered Accountant (CA) and should be allowed to pay 50% of the outstanding tax to seek relief. He further requested the court to quash the impugned tax orders and remand the case back to the GST authorities for fresh consideration of the case. However, the tax authorities opposed this request of the petitioner, stating that all actions were taken according to law and that the petitioner himself failed to respond despite being aware that his GST registration and email were linked to his accountant. When the high court analysed the arguments from both sides, it noted that the petitioner was explicitly aware of his GST suspension and contact details; however acted carelessly. Additionally, the petitioner did not take suitable or appropriate actions against his CA, making it unfair to place all blame on the professional. In conclusion, the court refused to grant relief to the petitioner even though he offered partial payment. As a result, the Court held that the petitions lacked merit and dismissed them all.