M/S Fone Zone Nxt vs. Commissioner Of Dgst, Delhi & Anr.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Fone Zone NXT, obtained GST registration in July 2017 and dealt in mobile phones and accessories. The petitioner claims to have filed regular returns, with the address on the GST portal being that of his Chartered Accountant. The petitioner's license was suspended at his request. Subsequently, show cause notices were issued for assessment years from 2017-18, leading to a proposed demand of Rs. 2,32,166/-. The petitioner neither filed a reply nor attended the personal hearing, resulting in an ex-parte order dated August 20, 2024, under Section 73 of the DGST Act. Similar notices were issued for subsequent years due to ITC mismatches and retrospective cancellation of supplier registrations, leading to the impugned orders. The petitioner's GST registration was suspended, and the email address on the portal belonged to his Chartered Accountant.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner's arguments were not sufficient to warrant indulgence. The Court noted that the petitioner was aware of the suspension of his GST registration and that the email address provided for GST registration belonged to his Chartered Accountant. The Court found no satisfactory explanation as to whether any action was initiated by the petitioner against his Chartered Accountant for the alleged lapse. The Court observed that it is easy to blame a professional who is not present to defend themselves. The Court found that the grounds raised by the petitioner were not sufficient to infer a default on the part of the Chartered Accountant that would require the petitioner to suffer the impugned orders. The Court distinguished the cited judgment in M/s Walsons Services Pvt. Ltd. as being based on a different set of facts. The Court also held that the petitioner's willingness to deposit 50% of the liability would not compel the Court to deviate from the statutory procedure. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to show indulgence and found the petitions to lack merit.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 25.12.2023, given the alleged failure of his Chartered Accountant to communicate show cause notices, leading to ex-parte orders? 2. Whether the Court should exercise equity in favour of the petitioner, who is willing to deposit 50% of the outstanding demand, despite the department proceeding strictly in accordance with statutory provisions? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the failure to respond to show cause notices and attend personal hearings was due to the Chartered Accountant's failure to communicate, for which the petitioner should not be penalized. He expressed willingness to deposit 50% of the demand and sought an opportunity for a fresh hearing. The petitioner relied on the Division Bench judgment in M/s Walsons Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sales Tax Officer/Class II (STO), DGST & Anr., decided on 14th November 2025, where equity was exercised in favour of the petitioner. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent argued that the department acted strictly in accordance with statutory provisions. The petitioner's failure to appear pursuant to the show cause notices led to the impugned orders. The petitioner was aware that the GST registration was linked to his Chartered Accountant's email and was therefore obligated to remain vigilant and in contact with the Chartered Accountant's office. The respondent sought dismissal of the petitions.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (4 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT (ORAL) NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J.
Since all these petitions involve a common and similar issue, they are being clubbed and disposed of by this common order.
The facts of W.P.(C) 888/2026 are taken as the lead case for consideration.
The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: “a. Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, in the nature of mandamus or any other Writ for revocation of W.P.(C) 888/2026 & connected matters provisional attachment of the bank accounts detailed in para 17 of the Petition and; b. Issue Writ, Order or Direction to allow the Petitioner to appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 25.12.2023; and/ or; c. Pass any other order and / or direction, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice.”
The petitioner obtained GST registration for his firm on 1st July 2017 while dealing in the subject of mobile phones and allied accessories.
It is the petitioner’s case that he was filing regular returns and the address furnished on the GST portal was that of his Chartered Accountant.
The license of the petitioner was suspended based on the request made by the petitioner.
Thereafter, he was served with show cause notices for the assessment years commencing from 2017-18, which form the subject matter of the present petitions.
A proposed demand of Rs. 2,32,166/- was raised against the petitioner. The reminder was served on the petitioner for attending the personal hearing, however, the petitioner has neither filed reply to the show cause notice nor attended personal hearing, resulting in the passing of the ex-parte order on 20th August 2024 under Section 73 of the DGST Act. Similarly, the show cause notices were issued for subsequent years on account of mismatch in ITC and cancellation of registration of certain suppliers with retrospective effect.
Consequently, resulting into passing the orders impugned. W.P.(C) 888/2026 & connected matters 10. It is the case of the petitioner that (a) on the registration portal the address was that of his Chartered Accountant. There was a failure on the part of the Chartered Accountant to communicate to the petitioner and in such an eventuality the petitioner may not be penalized for the same. (b) he is willing to deposit 50% of the demand which is outstanding against him and in such an eventuality, the Court may make equity in favour of the petitioner in view of the fact that the petitioner was prejudiced because of the failure of his Chartered Accountant in communicating the show cause notices and consequences thereof.
As such, he urges that the impugned orders be quashed and set aside by offering an opportunity of fresh hearing to the petitioner.
As alleged above, the counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer, as according to her, the department has proceeded strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions and it was the failure of the petitioner to appear pursuant to the show cause notice, which led to the passing of the impugned order.
She claims that the petitioner was fully aware that the GST registration was linked to the email address of his Chartered Accountant and, in such an eventuality, it was incumbent upon him to remain vigilant and in contact with the office of the Chartered Accountant.
As such, a dismissal is sought.
We have considered the rival claims.
No doubt the counsel for the petitioner has drawn support from W.P.(C) 888/2026 & connected matters the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the matter of W.P.(C) 16730/2025, M/s Walsons Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sales Tax Officer/Class II (STO), DGST & Anr., decided on 14th November 2025. 17. The learned counsel has submitted that this Court, having regard to the similar not identical issue, was pleased to exercise equity and discretion in favour of the petitioner therein by putting the petitioner to a condition of payment of cost.
The fact remains that the said judgment which the petitioner intends to rely upon is based on the different set of facts.
If we notice the factual matrix of the present case, the fact that the petitioner’s GST registration was suspended was a fact within his knowledge.
The fact that the petitioner, for the purpose of GST registration, has provided the e-mail address of his Chartered Accountant was also a fact within his notice.
The petitioner seeks to attribute the entire lapse to his Chartered Accountant for not communicating with him on the issue of show cause notice, which led to consequently passing the impugned order.
When confronted, we are unable to get satisfactory explanation as to whether any action was initiated by the petitioner against his Chartered Accountant, because of whose fault the petitioner has suffered the order impugned.
It is very easy to blame a professional, like the one in the present case, as such professional is not before this Court to defend his interest.
Even otherwise, from the record we are unable to satisfy W.P.(C) 888/2026 & connected matters ourselves as to the ground raised by the petitioner is sufficient enough to infer that there was a default on the part of the Chartered Accountant and the petitioner was required to suffer for the same.
In the aforesaid factual background, we are unable to pull the line of the reasons recorded in the matter of M/s Walsons cited supra.
Even if the petitioner is willing to deposit 50% of the liability, that by itself will not call upon us to deviate from the statutory procedure established by law.
For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we are not inclined to show indulgence by entertaining the present petitions.
The petitions, in our opinion, lack merit, stand dismissed. NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J AJAY DIGPAUL, J JANUARY 22, 2026/ar/dd
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.