M/S MAHESH FABRINOX PVT. LTD vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~55 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 06th May, 2025 + W.P.(C) 6006/2025 M/S MAHESH FABRINOX PVT. LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. N.K. Sharma and Mr. Kapil Gautam, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Neha Rastogi, SPC with Mr. Animesh Rastogi, Mr. Vibhav Singh, Mr. Shashank Pandey and Mr. Rajat Dubey, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Akash Verma, Sr. SC, CBIC with Ms. Aanchal Uppal, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 27487/2025 (for exemption) 2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 6006/2025 3. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner – M/s Mahesh Fabrinox Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter “the Petitioner Firm”) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Order-in-Original dated 1st February, 2025, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax (hereinafter “the impugned order”). Vide the impugned Signature Not Verified Signed By:NAMITA W.P.(C) 6006/2025 Page 1 of 7 DHYANI Signing Date:10.05.2025 15:47:48 order a demand has been raised against the Petitioner Firm for fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (hereinafter “ITC”). 4. The grievance of the Petitioner Firm is that the reply was filed by the Petitioner Firm, however, the same was not considered and no personal hearing was given prior to passing of the impugned order. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner Firm points out that in the said reply, it was clearly stated that in the year 2017-18, which is the relevant financial year, the Petitioner Firm had not even commenced its operations. Hence, there was no question of any supplies being taken from an