High Court of Gujarat
MAHALAXMI INDUSTRIESversusUNION OF INDIA
- Disposal
- 28-REJECTED @ ADM.STAGE
Holding
The writ petition is not maintainable and is dismissed because an alternative efficacious remedy exists and the same matter has already been withdrawn in a related case.
Summary
Mahalaxmi Industries filed a writ petition challenging an Order‑in‑Original dated 23‑03‑2026 of the Assistant Commissioner of Central GST, which confirmed a demand of Rs 1,46,76,034 under Section 74 of the CGST Act for allegedly availing ineligible input tax credit (ITC) on fake invoices from non‑existent Delhi firms. The same Show‑Cause Notice had earlier been the basis of a writ petition by the related entity Mahalaxmi Metal Industries (Special Civil Application No. 6227 of 2026), which was withdrawn to pursue an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The Court observed that both petitioners are closely connected, the factual matrix is identical, and the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of filing an appeal. Consequently, the Court held that the present writ petition is not maintainable. The petition was therefore dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition is maintainable when an alternative efficacious remedy (appeal under Section 107 CGST Act) is available.
- Whether the petition is barred by the prior withdrawal of a similar petition by a related entity concerning the same Show‑Cause Notice.
Legislation cited
- Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017s. 107, s. 122, s. 74
Subjects
GSTInput Tax CreditFake invoicesSection 74Section 107Writ petitionAlternative remedyWithdrawal of petitionRelated entities
Judgment
C/SCA/9118/2026 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9118 of 2026
==========================================================
MAHALAXMI INDUSTRIES
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ANIL K GIDWANI(11308) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS HETAL G PATEL(11032) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 10/07/2026
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the Order-in-Original dated 23.03.2026 passed by
the Assistant Commissioner of Central GST, Division-V(Odhav),
Ahmedabad- South, under Section 74 of the Central Goods and
Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the CGST Act) confirming the
demand of ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC) / Tax of
Rs.1,46,76,034/- ordered recovery from the petitioner – M/s
Mahalaxmi Industries.
2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has an alternative
efficacious remedy to file an appeal before the Additional / Joint
Commissioner of Appeals under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
The petitioner along with six other suppliers was issued Show-
Cause Notice dated 10.06.2023 being Show-Cause Notice No.
DGGI/AZU/Gr.B/36-548/2022-23, calling upon the petitioner
as to why they should not be imposed the penalties under
Section 74 and Section 122 of the CGST Act, for availing fake
Page 1 of 4
C/SCA/9118/2026 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2026
ITC on the basis of the invoices issued by Delhi based non-
existent firms.
3. It is interesting to note that the present petitioner is M/s
Mahalaxmi Industries, operating from Shed No. B-30 Gopal
Charan Industrial Globe, Kathwada, Daskroi, Ahmedabad,
whereas Noticee no.2 – M/s Mahalaxmi Metal Industries is
operating from Shed No. B-23, Gopal Charan Industries Globe
had earlier filed writ petition being Special Civil Application No.
6227 of 2026, challenging the Order-in-Original dated
26.11.2025, which also emanated from the very same Show-
Cause Notice, which has been produced before this Court in the
present writ petition at Annexure-A. The said writ petition came
to be withdrawn by learned advocate Mr. Gidwani appearing for
the petitioner - M/s Mahalaxmi Metal Industries, with a view to
file an appeal before the Appellate Authority.
4. The present petition has been filed by the same advocate
and when an objection was raised by the learned Senior
Standing Counsel Ms. Hetal Patel pointing out the order of
withdrawal in Special Civil Application No. 6227 of 2026 and the
same Show-Cause Notice from which both the proceedings
emanates, learned advocate Mr. Gidwani has asserted before this
Court that he has neither referred to the said Show-Cause Notice
dated 10.06.2023 and nor challenged the same in the writ
petition being Special Civil Application No. 6227 of 2026.
Accordingly, we had directed the Registry to place the papers of
Special Civil Application No. 6227 of 2026 before this Court in
order to ascertain the statement made before us.
Page 2 of 4
C/SCA/9118/2026 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2026
5. On the perusal of the papers of Special Civil Application
No. 6227 of 2026 it is noticed by us that in the said writ petition
which was filed by M/S Mahalaxmi Metal Industries, the
petitioners has at Annexure – A produced the Show-Cause
Notice dated 10.06.2023 i.e. the very same Notice, which has
been produced in the present writ petition. The proceedings
under Section 74 of the CGST Act against the petitioner of
Special Civil Application No. 6227 of 2026 i.e. M/s Mahalaxmi
Metal Industries and the present writ petitioner – M/s
Mahalaxmi Industries, emanates from the same Show-Cause
Notice. The allegations are also peri materia about availing the
fake ITC on the basis of the invoices issued by Delhi based non-
existent firms.
6. The petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 6227 of 2026
i.e. M/s Mahalaxmi Metal Industries and present writ petitioner
M/s Mahalaxmi Industries are closely connected with each other
in availing the fake ITC and also operate from the address
mentioned herein above. It is also not in dispute as canvased by
learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Patel that both the
petitioners M/s Mahalxmi Metal Industries and M/s Mahalaxmi
Industries are operated and run by closely related individuals.
7. The Show-Cause Notice as well as the Order-in-Original in
detail establishes their links with the Delhi based firms from
which they have availed the fake ITC invoices. Thus, the
statement made before us, by the learned advocate Mr. Gidwani,
who appeared for both the petitioners, has mislead the Court.
Page 3 of 4
C/SCA/9118/2026 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2026
8. We do not find any difference in the findings recorded by
the adjudicating authority relating to the functioning of the
entities and availing of ITC on the basis of fake invoices from
non-existing firms and the modus operandi as described in the
Order-in-Original dated 26.11.2025 in the case of M/s
Mahalaxmi Metal Industries i.e. the writ petitioner of Special
Civil Application No. 6227 of 2026 and the present writ
petitioner appears to be identical. Accordingly, since the writ
petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 6227 of 2026 had
withdrawn the petition with a view to file an appeal, the present
writ petition is not entertained since the petitioner is having an
alternative efficacious remedy of filing an appeal under Section
107 of the CGST Act, before the Appellate Authority challenging
the impugned Order-in-Original.
9. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands rejected.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)
Radhika / S- 1
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: RADHIKA ABHILASH(HCD0042), Steno Gr II, at High Court of Gujarat on 13/07/2026 12:07:56
Page 4 of 4
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "GST"Sign in to search