Disposed¶29

Lakshmi Enterprises v. Union of India and Another

Delhi HC16 Mar 2026W.P.(C)/3280/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Lakshmi Enterprises v. Union of India; W.P.(C) 3280/2026 & CM APPLs. 15887-15888/2026; High Court of Delhi; Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul JJ.; decided 16.03.2026; CGST Act 2017; Section 73 show cause notice; Section 75(4); Section 107 appeal; natural justice; non-consideration of reply to SCN; GSTR-09; excess Input Tax Credit; demand Rs.26,83,27,210; personal appearance before proper officer on 06.04.2026; proprietorship trading Pan Masala and brooms; GSTIN 07ALTPB6947K2ZG.

What did the court decide?

Petition, along with pending applications, disposed of with a direction that the petitioner appear before the proper officer in 2 weeks, on 6th April, 2026 at 11:00 AM. ¶29

Lakshmi Enterprises Vs Union of India and Another — GST and Indirect Tax | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition, along with pending applications, disposed of with a direction that the petitioner appear before the proper officer in 2 weeks, on 6th April, 2026 at 11:00 AM.

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 31.12.2025 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice by non-consideration of the petitioner's replies to the show cause notice, contrary to the spirit of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

A conspectus of the documents enclosed with the replies and the reasons recorded in the impugned order leads the Court to conclude that the petitioner's replies were not sufficiently considered at the time of passing of the impugned order.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The right to be heard is an inalienable part of the principles of natural justice, and the non-consideration of replies is violative of the spirit of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017.

¶28

Key takeaways

No observations have been made regarding the merits of the petitioner's case, and the Court's observations shall not prejudice the proper authority in its adjudication of the matter.obiter¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

GST – Order under Section 73 CGST Act confirming demand of Rs.26,83,27,210/- for FY April 2021 to March 2022 (alleged excess ITC in GSTR-09) – Petitioner had filed three replies (01.08.2025, 31.10.2025, 30.12.2025) with reconciliation documents, yet the impugned order recorded that sale/purchase invoices, input-output liabilities register and audited balance sheet had not been supplied – Held: the replies were not sufficiently considered; the right to be heard is an inalienable part of natural justice and non-consideration of replies violates the spirit of Section 75(4) CGST Act – Petitioner directed to appear before the proper officer on 06.04.2026 at 11:00 AM – Petition disposed of; express clarification that no observations were made on the merits and shall not prejudice the adjudicating authority – Maintainability objection based on alternative remedy under Section 107 CGST Act raised but not expressly decided.

¶1

$~67

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 3280/2026 & CM APPLs. 15887-15888/2026

¶4

LAKSHMI ENTERPRISES .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sarvesh Jain, Mr. Shwetank Sailakwal, Mr. Mayank Suryan, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER .....Respondents Through: Mr. Puneet Dhawan, SPC with Mr. Kush Sharma and Mr. Sanjay Singh Rawat Advocates. Ms. Urvi Mohan, Advocate for GNCTD

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL

¶9

O R D E R % 16.03.2026

¶10

The present petition assails the impugned order dated 31^st December, 2025 passed by the respondent no. 2, Assistant Commissioner GST, confirming the demand of Rs.26,83,27,210/- as levied in the show cause notice under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the <CGST Act=) dated 03^rd July, 2025.

¶11

The petitioner is a proprietorship concern engaged in the business of trading of Pan Masala and brooms and has been duly registered under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 having GSTIN No. 07ALTPB6947K2ZG. 3. Respondent no. 2 issued a show cause notice under section 73 of the CGST Act dated 03^rd July, 2025 for the financial year of April 2021 to

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/03/2026 at 16:33:50

¶14

March 2022, alleging discrepancies in the annual returns of in the petitioner’s GSTR-09 amounting to Rs.26,83,27,210/specifically concerning the availment of excess Input tax Credit (hereinafter referred to as ITC).

¶15

In response thereto, the petitioner submitted replies dated 01^st August, 2025, 31^st October, 2025 and 30^th December, 2025 stating that the petitioner has not availed any excess ITC, and submitted various documents for reconciliation of the returns.

¶16

Seemingly dissatisfied with the replies of the petitioner, the respondent no. 2 passed the impugned order dated 31.12.2025 confirming the demand

¶17

Mr. Sarvesh Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order is a non-speaking order, passed in a mechanical manner and grossly violates the principles of natural justice. In order to buttress his submissions, he has drawn our attention to the impugned order which states that various documents such as sale and purchase invoices, input and output liabilities register, copy of audited balance sheet etc. have not been supplied by the petitioner. However, a bare perusal of the three replies, especially the enclosures in replies dated 01^st August, 2025 and 30^th December, 2025, show that the same documents had been promptly supplied by the petitioner before passing of the impugned order.

¶18

Issue notice.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents waive notice.

¶20

Ms. Urvi Mohan, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 raises a preliminary challenge to the maintainability of the present petition by contending that the petitioner has an alternative remedy

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/03/2026 at 16:33:50

¶23

available in the form of an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act.

¶24

Heard.

¶25

The Court has perused the records. In this petition, as mentioned above, the petitioner has filed three replies to the show cause notice dated 1^st August, 2025, 31^st October, 2025 and 30^th December, 2025 providing explanations and documents explaining the alleged discrepancies in the GSTR-09 returns. However, notwithstanding this, respondent no. 2 passed the impugned order dated 31^st December, 2025 inter-alia recording the following:-

¶26

<The Assessee has not provided breakup of exempted and taxable supplies. Sale and purchase invoices for the period under reference, input and output liabilities register, copy of audited balance sheet along with annexures. Therefore, the reply furnished by the taxpayer is not satisfactory.=

¶27

A conspectus of the documents enclosed in the replies and the specific reason accorded in the impugned order, as mentioned above, leads us to believe that the replies of the petitioner have not been sufficiently considered at the time of passing of the impugned order.

¶28

This court is of the considered opinion that the right to be heard is an inalienable part of the principles of natural justice, and the non-consideration of replies is violative of the spirit of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017. 14. Thus, the petitioner is directed to appear before the proper officer in 2 weeks, on 6^th April, 2026 at 11:00AM.

¶29

Accordingly, the petition, along with pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.

¶30

We make it clear that no observations have been made regarding the

¶31

This is a digitally signed order.

¶32

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/03/2026 at 16:33:50

¶33

merits of the petitioner’s case, and that our observations shall not prejudice the proper authority in its adjudication of the matter.

¶34

NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J

¶35

AJAY DIGPAUL, J

¶36

MARCH 16, 2026 Sk/sg

¶37

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/03/2026 at 16:33:50

Lakshmi Enterprises v. Union of India and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmi Enterprises v. Union of India and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Antique Marbonite Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board and Ors.

Vinay Sehrawat & Anr. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Ayush Thakur Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Kamlesh Kumar Vs New-Delhi Muncipal Council and Ors.

Chahat Choudhary Vs National Medical Commission and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Verma and Ors. Vs Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Aps Hydro Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

Manish Kumar & Ors. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Matrimony.Com Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner/Gsto (WARD-94) & Anr.

Librasol Technologies Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Country Wide Travels Vs Sales Tax Officer & Anr.

Kheta Ram Jat Vs Commissioner of Customs New Delhi

Ms Power Line Air Express Vs Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax & Ors.

Dinesh Kumar Dhingra Vs Commissioner of Customs New Delhi