Mathur Polymers Vs Union of India & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition filed by Mathur Polymers against the Delhi High Court’s judgment, thereby upholding the High Court’s findings on the adequacy of service of hearing notices and the validity of a consolidated order issued under the CGST Act. The Court found no reason to interfere with the decision of the Delhi High Court, which had rejected the petitioner’s challenge to an order-in-original confirming tax demand on account of alleged fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC).
Read Delhi HC Judgment: Consolidated GST Notices against Fraudulent ITC for Multiple Years Valid: Delhi HC
The dispute originated when Mathur Polymers filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking to set aside the order-in-original dated 2 February 2025 issued by the CGST Department. The petitioner claimed that it had not received notices for personal hearing prior to the passing of the order and thus the proceedings violated the principles of natural justice. The Court, after directing the Department to produce records of service, found that hearing notices had indeed been sent to the registered email address of the petitioner, [email protected], as reflected on the GST portal. Three opportunities for hearing were provided through two emails, dated 13 January 2025 and 18 January 2025, which were sent to the same address mentioned in the petitioner’s GST registration.
The Court observed that the registered email address, being part of the GST registration data, was presumed to belong to the proprietor and not to a consultant or third party. The writ petition did not disclose this fact, and hence the plea that notices were not received could not be accepted. Referring to Section 169(1)(c) of the CGST Act, the Court held that service of notice through the registered email address constitutes valid communication under the law. The Court distinguished the petitioner’s reliance on an income-tax judgment (Mrs. Neelam Ajit Phatarpekar v. ACIT), noting that the CGST Act’s provisions on service differ materially from those under the Income-tax Act.
The Delhi High Court further cited its own recent decision in Rishi Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner, Central Tax Delhi (North), clarifying that communication by email satisfies the requirement of “service” under Section 169. It explained that the Act permits service through various modes, including email and portal upload, and that such communication qualifies as “issuance” of an order or notice. Hence, the petitioner’s argument that deemed service could arise only in limited situations under Section 169(2) was rejected.
On the second issue raised by the petitioner — that a combined show cause notice and order covering multiple financial years was invalid — the Court noted that the proceedings involved alleged fraudulent availment of ITC amounting to ₹81.54 lakh, arising from a long investigation covering several years. The Court held that the language of Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act permits issuance of notices “for any period” or “for such periods,” which may span multiple financial years, particularly in cases involving ITC fraud where transactions often extend across different periods. The Court relied on its earlier decision in Ambika Traders v. Additional Commissioner (Adjudication), DGGSTI, which had held that consolidated notices are permissible where multiple years are involved in a continuing pattern of transactions.
Given the statutory scheme and the factual background, the High Court found no violation of natural justice or jurisdictional error. It also noted that the petitioner had concealed material facts by not disclosing the registered email details and had shifted its stand after the Department produced evidence of notice service. Consequently, the petition was dismissed with costs of ₹50,000 payable to the CGST Department.
The Supreme Court, while condoning delay, found no reason to interfere and dismissed the special leave petition, effectively affirming that email communication to the registered address constitutes valid service under Section 169 of the CGST Act and that consolidated notices for multiple periods are permissible in ITC fraud cases.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
