M/S Tracx Logis INDIA Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax
Facts
The Petitioner, M/s Tracx Logis India Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an Order-in-Original dated 30.08.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax. The Petitioner had availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 34,40,378/-. The Petitioner did not file a reply to the Show-Cause-Notice dated 28.05.2024 and failed to appear despite being granted three opportunities. An application for rectification of the Order-in-Original was also dismissed on 14.09.2026. The Court noted that the Petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal against the Order-in-Original.
Held
The Court held that the Petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 30.08.2024 and the order dated 14.09.2026 dismissing the rectification application. The Court noted that the Petitioner had availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs. 34,40,378/- and had failed to file a reply to the Show-Cause-Notice dated 28.05.2024, despite being granted three opportunities to appear. Given this position, the Court advised the Petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal if so advised. The writ petition was disposed of with the observation that the Petitioner may pursue the appellate remedy.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 30.08.2024 and the subsequent order dated 14.09.2026 dismissing the rectification application, despite not filing a reply to the Show-Cause-Notice and not appearing before the authority. Petitioner's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Petitioner. However, by filing a writ petition, it is implied they sought to bypass the appellate remedy. Respondent's Contention: The respondent, represented by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, did not present any arguments as per the judgment. However, the judgment itself acknowledges the existence of a statutory remedy of appeal.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned in the provided text, but the context implies provisions related to show-cause notices, orders-in-original, rectification, and appeals under GST law.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R % 01.10.2026
Admittedly, the Petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 30.08.2024. The Petitioner filed application for rectification of the said Order-in-Original dated 30.08.2026, which was also dismissed vide order 14.09.2026. It has been found that the Petitioner availed Input Tax Credit (‘ITC’) amounting to Rs. 34,40,378/-.
It is evident from the record that the Petitioner neither filed reply to the Show-Cause-Notice dated 28.05.2024 nor appeared despite three opportunities granted to the Petitioner on 09.07.2024, 18.07.2024 and 23.07.2024. 3. Keeping in view the aforesaid position, the Petitioner, if so advised, may avail remedy of appeal. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can b
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.