M/S MATHUR POLYMERS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 2(106); GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 73(10); GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 74(10); GST statutory provision - Section 74(3); GST statutory provision - Section 74(4); GST statutory provision - Section 169; GST statutory provision - Section 169(1); GST statutory provision - Section 169(2)

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the impugned Order- in-Original dated 02 nd February, 2025 passed by Respondent No. 3. The impugned order is challenged, inter alia, on the ground that the notices for personal hearing were not received by the Petitioner. Operative disposition: Further, the Petitioner also had a duty to specifically plead in the writ petition that on the registered e-mail address, notices for personal hearing were received, which has not been done. The plea of Natural Justice was raised vehemently, until the Department established that emails were sent. Thereafter the plea being taken is that the emails were sent to the email address of the Chartered Accountant. This Court has already noted above that the said email was the registered email address of the…
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

W.P.(C) 2394/2025 Page 1 of 11 $~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 26th August, 2025 + W.P.(C) 2394/2025 & CM APPL. 11289/2025 M/S MATHUR POLYMERS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Akhil Krishan Maggu, Mr. Vikas Sareen, Mr. Aryan Nagpal, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Gibran Naushad, SSC with Mr. Harsh Singhal and Mr. Suraj Shekhar Singh, Advs. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN JUDGMENT Prathiba M. Singh, J. 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the impugned Orderin-Original dated 02 nd February, 2025 passed by Respondent No. 3. The impugned order is challenged, inter alia, on the ground that the notices for personal hearing were not received by the Petitioner. 3. On previous dates of hearing, i.e., 10 th March, 2025 and 17 th April, 2025, the CGST Department was directed to place on record any documents to show that the personal hearing notices have been given to the Petitioner in this matter. 4. A set of documents, along with an affidavit, has been placed on record by the CGST Department. Mr. Gibran Naushad, ld. Counsel for the CGST Department has shown to the Court that there were three opportunities for

W.P.(C) 2394/2025 Page 2 of 11 hearing which were given to the Petitioner vide two hearing notices. 5. For the first hearing on 16 th January, 2025, an e-mail was sent to the registered e-mail address provided by the Petitioner. The e-mail dated 13 th January, 2025, sent at 16:33 hrs to pulkitjainca88@gmail.com, which is the registered e-mail address of the Petitioner in the Goods and Services Tax (hereinafter, ‘GST’) portal has been placed on record. The second notice fixing the dates for personal hearing on 23 rd January, 2025 and 29 th January, 2025, was sent by e-mail to the same e-mail address i.e., pulkitjainca88@gmail.com on 18th January, 2025 at 05:44 p.m. 6. The GST portal of the Petitioner is relevant and is extracted below:

10. In fact, the writ petition is conspicuously silent on this fact that the emails for personal hearing were sent to the Petitioner’s registered e-mail address. 11. Be that as it may, under Section 169(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter, ‘the Act’), a communication sent to an email address provided at the time of GST registration is adequate service of a decision, order, summons or notice or any other communication. Relevant portion of the said provision is extracted hereunder: “169. Service of notice in certain circumstances.—(1) Any decision, order, summons, notice or other communication under this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be served by any one of the following methods, namely:— xxxx (c) by sending a communication to his e-mail address provided at the time of registration or as amended from time to time..” 12.

Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner relies upon Mrs. Neelam Ajit Phatarpekar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Tax Appeal No. 2756 of 2024 to

W.P.(C) 2394/2025 Page 4 of 11 argue that a notice given to the Chartered Accountant would not be sufficient notice under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 13. Insofar as this issue is concerned, the Court is of the view that the language in the Income Tax Act and in the CGST Act is different. With respect to Section169 of the Act, this Court has also taken a view recently in W.P. (C) 4374/2025 titled Rishi Enterprises through its Proprietor v. Additional Commissioner Central Tax Delhi, North & Anr.that communication on the email address is sufficient communication. The relevant part of the order reads as under: 32. A perusal of the above provision would show that the service can be effected either - (i) through physical tendering, or (ii) by registered post or speed post or courier with acknowledgment due, or (iii) by a communication to the email address, or (iv) uploading on the common portal, or (v) by publication in a newspaper or by affixation.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

The judgment does not separately label this side’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment does not separately label the respondent’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

Therefore, the term issuance of an order has to be interpreted in the context of Section 169 of the Act and Rule 142 of the CGST Rules. Under the scheme of Section 169 of the Act the usual modes of service are stipulated and some modes of service are also construed as

Therefore, communicating an order by email would be sufficient service in terms of Section 169 of Act for constituting issuance of an order. Rule 142 is also clear in the initial portion where it uses the expression, summary of the order issued under Section 74 of the Act. 14. Thus, in this case, the Court is satisfied that by both the e-mails, the proper hearing notices have been given to the Petitioner. 15. The second issue that is being raised herein is in respect of Section 74(10) of the Act, stating that a combined Show Cause Notice and order cannot be given and separate orders have to be passed in respect of separate financial years.

47. A solitary availment or utilization of ITC in one financial year may actually not be capable of by itself establishing the pattern of fraudulent availment or utilization. It is only when the series of transactions are analysed, investigated, and enquired into, and a consistent pattern is established, that the fraudulent availment and utilization of ITC may be revealed. The language in the abovementioned provisions i.e., the word `period’ or `periods’ as against `financial year’ or `assessment year’ are therefore, significant. 48. The ITC mechanism is one of the salient features of the GST regime which was introduced to encourage genuine businesses. In the words of Shri Pranab Mukherjee, the then Hon’ble President of India, who addressed the Nation at the launch of the GST on 1st July, 2017, ITC was highlighted as one of the core features integral to the framework of the GST regime.

Operative decision and relief

W.P.(C) 2394/2025 Page 11 of 11 24. Thus, the impugned order does not warrant interference under writ jurisdiction of this Court. 25. Further, the Petitioner also had a duty to specifically plead in the writ petition that on the registered e-mail address, notices for personal hearing were received, which has not been done. The plea of Natural Justice was raised vehemently, until the Department established that emails were sent. Thereafter the plea being taken is that the emails were sent to the email address of the Chartered Accountant. This Court has already noted above that the said email was the registered email address of the Petitioner on the CGST portal. Thus, the notices were rightly sent and this Court is also of the opinion that the relevant and material facts have been concealed from the Court. The Petition is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the CGST Department. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE AUGUST 26, 2025/kp/ss

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with M/S MATHUR POLYMERS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. concerns issue and context: the present petition has been filed by the petitioner under articles 226 & 227 of the constitution of india seeking to set aside the impugned order- in-original dated 02 nd february, 2025 passed by respondent no. 3. the impugned order is challenged, inter alia, on the ground that the notices for personal hearing were not received by the petitioner. operative disposition: further, the petitioner also had a duty to specifically plead in the writ petition that on the registered e-mail address, notices for personal hearing were received, which has not been done. the plea of natural justice was raised vehemently, until the department established that emails were sent. thereafter the plea being taken is that the emails were sent to the email address of the chartered accountant. this court has already noted above that the said email was the registered email address of the… The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in W.P.(C) 2394/2025.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Disposed” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: Issue and context: The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the impugned Order- in-Original dated 02 nd February, 2025 passed by Respondent No. 3. The impugned order is challenged, inter alia, on the ground that the notices for personal hearing were not received by the Petitioner. Operative disposition: Further, the Petitioner also had a duty to specifically plead in the writ petition that on the registered e-mail address, notices for personal hearing were received, which has not been done. The plea of Natural Justice was raised vehemently, until the Department established that emails were sent. Thereafter the plea being taken is that the emails were sent to the email address of the Chartered Accountant. This Court has already noted above that the said email was the registered email address of the… Its practical value lies in the way the Delhi High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 2(106); GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 73(10); GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 74(10); GST statutory provision - Section 74(3); GST statutory provision - Section 74(4); GST statutory provision - Section 169; GST statutory provision - Section 169(1); GST statutory provision - Section 169(2)—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of GST statutory provision - Section 2(106); GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 73(10); GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 74(10); GST statutory provision - Section 74(3); GST statutory provision - Section 74(4); GST statutory provision - Section 169; GST statutory provision - Section 169(1); GST statutory provision - Section 169(2) and the decision date 2025-08-26; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is M/S MATHUR POLYMERS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS., the proceeding is W.P.(C) 2394/2025, and the decision is dated 2025-08-26. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with GST statutory provision - Section 2(106); GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 73(10); GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 74(10); GST statutory provision - Section 74(3); GST statutory provision - Section 74(4); GST statutory provision - Section 169; GST statutory provision - Section 169(1); GST statutory provision - Section 169(2). The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Disposed. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_SUBSEQUENT_TREATMENT_CHECK_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• GST statutory provision - Section 2(106) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 73 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 73(10) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 74 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 74(10) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 74(3) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 74(4) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 169 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 169(1) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 169(2) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE v. GIRISH SACHDEVA — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• M/s Technosys Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• M/s Power Line Air Express v. Principal Commissioner of CGST and Others — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• CGST, Delhi West v. Vishal Goyal — Delhi High Court · Disposed

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 692 judgments
• Explore Input Tax Credit

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_EXACT_SANITIZED_MIRROR · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY