2026 (2) TMI 166 - HC - GST

Service irregularity and interim deposit in tax dispute; court orders Rs 25 lakh deposit to secure revenue.

Alleged procedural irregularity in service and summary adjudication was examined; incomplete production of email extracts about notices led the court to ... Procedural irregularity - service of notice - summary adjudication - interim deposit to secure revenue - consequence of non-compliance - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has not produced the entire extract of the e-mail communication of the petitioner’s Director, as to whether intimations/reminders were received by them or not, whether was deleted or transferred to Spam. The interest of the Revenue has to be secured, particularly, when the person, who is said to have promoted the business has left the Company for a mother to defend the proceedings, who appears to be a Senior Citizen and a Homemaker. Therefore, to secure the interest of the mother and the Revenue, there will be a direction to the petitioner represented by its Director particularly, her son Mr. Kishen Raphael to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakh only) of the disputed tax within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case of any failure on the part of the petitioner or her son, the petitioner being represented by Director Molly Rafi, is directed to deposit the aforesaid sum, failing which, the respondents are are liberty to proceed against the petitioner, by deeming as, if the Writ Petition is dismissed in limine along with other steps to extradite the petitioner’s son. Writ Petition stands disposed of. Issues: Whether a writ petition challenging the Order-in-Original dated 30.07.2025 on the ground of non-receipt of the Show Cause Notice can be finally adjudicated in a summary proceeding and whether interim security in the form of a deposit should be directed to protect the revenue pending challenge.Analysis: The issue of service of notice and receipt of communications cannot be conclusively determined in a summary admission-stage proceeding. Relevant documentary proof of email communications or inbox status was not produced by the petitioner. Material facts include that the petitioner's director has left the business and the country, which affects the ability to secure recovery. In these circumstances, protecting the fiscal interest requires an interim measure. Hence a quantifiable deposit was directed to secure the disputed tax while the challenge proceeds.Conclusion: Direction issued for deposit of Rs. 25,00,000 within 30 days by the petitioner (represented by its director and her son) as interim security; failure to deposit permits respondents to treat the writ petition as dismissed in limine and to proceed with recovery steps including extradition measures against the son.