Gujarat HC Dismisses GST Writ for Delay and Non-Cooperation by Taxpayer:

Gujarat HC Dismisses GST Writ for Delay and Non-Cooperation by Taxpayer

The court dismissed the petition due to delay and laches. Gujarat HC Rejects GST Writ for Delay and Laches The court dismissed the petition due to delay and laches.

Gujarat HC Rejects GST Writ for Delay and Laches

authorNidhidateAug 26, 2025
Last update on Aug 26, 2025
Gujarat HC Dismisses GST Writ for Delay and Non-Cooperation by Taxpayer The Gujarat High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a GST demand and penalty due to the non-action and non-cooperation by the petitioner. The petitioner, M/S New Patel Auto Gas, is a proprietary firm that deals in CNG Sequential Injection Kits, CNG car cylinders, Gas Cylinder Valves, etc., as a wholesaler and a retailer. The GST department had issued a summons in 2022 for short payment of GST, and later a GST-DRC-01A dated 23.07.2024, intimating the liability under section 74(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. However, there were no replies from the petitioner's side, which resulted in passing the impugned show cause notice dated 29.07.2017 under section 74(1) of the CGST Act.
Delhi HC Orders GST Refund Release; Department Cannot Withhold on "Opinion" Alone
The petitioner was given many opportunities for personal hearings given in October and November 2024, but neither the petitioner nor their representative appeared for the hearing. This resulted in passing the final impugned order on 06.12.2024 based on the available records. The petitioner approached the Gujarat High Court requesting the court to:
  • admit the petition without any payment
  • quashing the time-barred demand, show cause notice and the final order
  • set aside the penalty imposed illegally
  • Issue an order of stay on recovery of penalty.
ITAT Allows Appeal, Deletes Additions on Bogus Purchases, Suppression of Production and Section 40A(3) Disallowance
The Bench, comprising Mr Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Mr Justice Pranav Trivedi, observed that the petitioner was given many opportunities to take action against the notice. The order was served more than eight months later, yet the petitioner did not take any action against the notice. The court dismissed the petition due to delay and laches.

About Author

Nidhi

Content Writer

Nidhi is a skilled content writer specializing in personal finance. She creates clear, engaging articles on mutual funds, investments, insurance, and wealth-building strategies. With a passion for simplifying complex financial topics, Nidhi helps readers make informed money decisions with confidence. She can be reached at [email protected]
Studycafe
New Delhi, Delhi, India
1833
Up Next

Loading suggestions…