Judgment
$~71 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010394502024 + W.P.(C) 9308/2024 M/S WHITECLIFF INDUSTRIES LTD .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Rahul Gupta, Mr. Harpreet Singh, Mr. Vijay Gupta, Advs.
versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
.....Respondents Through:
Mr. Vijay Joshi, CGSC with Mr. Shubham Chaturvedi, Adv.
for R-1.
Mr. Aakarsh Srivastava, SSC with Mr. Ashish Bansal, Mr.
Ankit Kumar, Mr. Dhananjay Parth, Advs. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN O R D E R % 07.09.2026 1.
Through the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks issuance of writ in nature of mandamus, to set-aside/quash the Order-in- Original dated 31.05.2024 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’] issued by the Respondent No.2.
2.
Pithily put, the Petitioner came under investigation by the officers of DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit, during the period of 2018-19 in relation to the alleged availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the GST regime. Pursuant thereto, the DGGI issued Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 16.03.2022, proposing, inter alia, imposition of penalty upon the Petitioner in connection with the alleged availment of 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 10/09/2026 at 11:27:57
fraudulent ITC by the Petitioner.
3.
Following which, a personal hearing was fixed for 14.03.2023, which was communicated to the Petitioner vide letter dated 17.02.2023. The Petitioner, by letter dated 11.03.2023, sought an adjournment of the hearing to a date after the first week of April 2023, stating that it was in the process of collating the requisite material for defending the proceedings.
4.
However, it is the case of the Petitioner that the Adjudicating Authority (AA), neither granted the requested adjournment nor communicated any decision thereon and proceeded to pass the Impugned Order ex-parte. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking our indulgence.
5.
Learned counsel representing the Petitioner contends that vide letter dated 17.02.2023, the Petitioner was afforded an opportunity for personal hearing scheduled for 14.03.2023, at 03:00 p.m. It is contended that, instead of proceeding with the matter on the date so fixed, the AA passed the final order on 31.01.2024, without issuing any further notice or affording the Petitioner any further opportunity of hearing.
6.
As per the Short Affidavit dated 08.08.2024 placed on record by the Respondent No.2, it has been disclosed that the Petitioner was duly served with the SCN dated 16.03.2022, however, no reply thereto came to be filed by the Petitioner.
7.
Thereafter, the Petitioner was afforded as many as three opportunities of personal hearing, vide notices dated 09.12.2022, 12.01.2023 and 22.03.2023 fixing the hearings on 05.01.2023, 07.02.2023 and 11.04.2023, respectively. Despite the aforesaid opportunities, the Petitioner neither filed any reply to the SCN nor 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 10/09/2026 at 11:27:57
availed the opportunities of personal hearing so afforded.
8.
Admittedly, the Petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, against the Impugned Order.
9.
In the present case, the principal grievance of the Petitioner, in substance, is that it was not afforded adequate opportunities to represent its case before the AA.
10.
The aforesaid grievance would entail examination and appreciation of the material on record, which can appropriately and in an elaborate manner be undertaken by the Appellate Authority in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
11.
Hence, the Petitioner, if so advised, may avail the remedy of appeal.
12.
In the event the Petitioner prefers an appeal, it shall be open to the Petitioner to file an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking exclusion of period for which the present Petition remained pending. Needless to state, such application shall be considered by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law.
13.
With these observations, the present Writ Petition is disposed of.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
SHAIL JAIN, J.
SEPTEMBER 7, 2026 jai/hr 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 10/09/2026 at 11:27:57