Short Summary
M/s. Cart Infralog Ltd. & Anr. filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court challenging a Show Cause Notice dated 11.06.2025 issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, and the consequential Order in Original dated 09.12.2025, alleging ineligible and irregular Input Tax Credit (ITC) of approximately Rs. 2.37 crores with total interest and penalty aggregating to Rs. 6.3 crores. The petitioners contended that the defaulting supplier (M/s. Aster Trading Company) who failed to file GSTR-3B should be held liable, not the purchasing dealer, relying on the Division Bench decision in Suncraft Energy Pvt. Ltd. (affirmed by the Supreme Court on 14.12.2023). The Court quashed the Order in Original and the recovery notice, directed reconsideration of the matter in light of the cited precedents, and required the petitioners to deposit Rs. 10,00,000/- as a condition for remand.
Detailed Summary
The petitioners, M/s. Cart Infralog Ltd. & Anr., filed a Writ Petition (WPA 16556 of 2025) before the Calcutta High Court challenging inter alia the Show Cause Notice dated 11.06.2025 issued under Section 74 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 for the Financial Years 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2023-24, along with the consequential Order in Original dated 09.12.2025 passed during the pendency of the Writ Petition. The respondents included the Additional Commissioner, HQ Anti-Evasion Unit, CGST & CX, Kolkata South Commissionerate and others.
The Show Cause Notice was issued on two grounds: (i) availment and utilization of ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 88,57,040/-, and (ii) availment of irregular excess ITC amounting to Rs. 1,48,84,011/- in GSTR-3B as compared to ITC available in GSTR-2A for the period in question. The total principal demand was Rs. 2,37,41,051/- with interest and penalty aggregating to Rs. 6.3 Crores.
The petitioners argued that a report was already in circulation regarding suppliers who had not filed GSTR-3B, and that the petitioners were identified as beneficiaries of one such supplier (M/s. Aster Trading Company) who failed to file GSTR-3B for FY 2019-20. The petitioners contended that the Department had already initiated separate proceedings against the defaulting supplier, and that the inadmissible credit along with interest and penalty should be recovered from the defaulting suppliers and not from the petitioners. The petitioners submitted detailed replies and supporting documents on 10.11.2025, which they claimed were not properly considered by the adjudicating authority.
The petitioners relied heavily on the Division Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in *Suncraft Energy Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Ballyguange Charge* reported in (2023) 9 Centax 48 (Cal), which held that the department cannot deny ITC to a bona fide purchasing dealer merely because the selling dealer failed to deposit the tax, and that the remedy lies against the defaulting selling dealer. This judgment was challenged before the Supreme Court via Special Leave Petition, which was dismissed on 14.12.2023, thereby attaining finality.
The Court, after considering the submissions and the binding precedent in Suncraft Energy Private Limited (supra) as affirmed by the Supreme Court on 14.12.2023, held that the impugned Order in Original suffered from non-application of mind, violation of principles of natural justice, and was without jurisdiction to the extent it invoked Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 for the period 2018-19.
The Court issued the following directions:
1. The Order in Original dated 09.12.2025 along with the consequential recovery notice dated 12.06.2026 was quashed and set aside.
2. Respondent No. 1 was directed to revisit the issue by reconsidering the reply dated 10.11.2025 along with all documents, in light of the judgments in Suncraft Energy Private Ltd. and G.R. Infra Projects Private Ltd. (Ratlum) passed by the Supreme Court.
3. Respondent No. 1 was directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order after affording an opportunity of personal hearing within four weeks.
4. As a condition for remand and prima facie proof of bona fides, the petitioners were directed to deposit Rs. 10,00,000/- in Form GST DRC03 under protest within four weeks, failing which the benefit of the order would stand vacated and the department would be at liberty to proceed for recovery of Rs. 6.3 Crores.
5. The petitioners were directed to produce all relevant documents including tax invoices, E-Waybills, transport receipts, bank statements, GSTR-2A/2B and GSTR-3B correspondence, and proof of proceedings against defaulting suppliers.
The Writ Petition was allowed and disposed of along with CAN 1 of 2026 with the above observations and directions.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in other matters before Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side). Understanding the court's reasoning in M/s. Cart Infralog Ltd. & Anr. vs The Additional Commissioner, HQ Anti-Evasion Unit, CGST & CX, Kolkata South Commissionerate & Ors. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
State Of Himachal Pradesh & AnrvsM/S Ech Ess Builders
The State of Himachal Pradesh and another challenged the judgment dated 09.08.2024 of the District Judge, Kinnaur, which had dismissed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against an arbitral award dated 05.12.2019 in a construction contract dispute with M/s Ech Ess Builders. The High Court held that since the dispute was a 'commercial dispute' under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and the District Judge was not designated as a commercial court at the time the objections were filed on 17.07.2020, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. The appeal was disposed of by setting aside the District Judge's judgment and directing return of the objections for presentation before the appropriate forum.
Atul Bhaleraav PatilvsState Of Gujarat & Ors.
The applicant filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash FIR No.11191037211559 of 2021 registered at Odhav Police Station, Ahmedabad, for offences under Sections 51, 63 and 64 of the Copyright Act, 1957, arising from seizure of duplicate Honda two-wheeler accessories bearing counterfeit Honda stickers. The Gujarat High Court dismissed the application, holding that a prima facie case of copyright infringement was disclosed and that the remedies under the Copyright Act operate independently of the Trade Marks Act.
Sanjeet PrakashvsThe State Of Bihar
This is an anticipatory bail application filed by Sanjeet Prakash and Abhishek Kumar, directors of Glowline Poly Plast Pvt. Ltd., in connection with Parsa Bazar P.S. Case No. 246 of 2026 registered for offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 303(2), 324(4), 352, 351(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The case arose from allegations by Usha Polytubes that the petitioners' company was manufacturing and selling PVC pipes bearing the counterfeit 'Usha Gold' trademark. The Patna High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, directing that the petitioners be enlarged on bail upon arrest or surrender within eight weeks, subject to furnishing bail bonds and conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Md. Gyas Alam @ Gyas AlamvsThe State Of Bihar
The petitioner, Md. Gyas Alam, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered for offences under the Copyright Act, the Trade Marks Act, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, arising from the alleged manufacture and sale of counterfeit lubricant products at a godown in Nawada. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated merely because he was the brother of co-accused Md. Niyaz, the actual proprietor of the firm from whose premises the counterfeit goods were recovered. The Patna High Court, considering the nature of the accusation and the petitioner's clean antecedent, allowed the anticipatory bail application subject to conditions.
Sh Shashi Bhushan & OrsvsState Of Delhi & Ors
The petitioners (10 in number, led by Mr. Shashi Bhushan) filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR No. 0896/2022 registered at P.S. Sadar Bazar under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, alleging stocking and sale of counterfeit products bearing infringing marks. The parties entered into a compromise deed dated 27.07.2026, and the court, applying the principles laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, quashed the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom, holding that the non-compoundable offences were essentially against the rights of the IP proprietor and were of a commercial/civil character.
State of Himachal Pradesh & OrsvsNitin Sonkhla
The State of Himachal Pradesh and others filed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the District Judge's dismissal of their Section 34 objections against an arbitral award in favor of contractor Nitin Sonkhla. The dispute arose from a road construction contract that was rescinded after the contractor failed to complete the work within the stipulated time. The High Court set aside the District Judge's judgment on the ground that the District Judge was not designated as a 'commercial court' under Section 3 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 at the time of filing or adjudicating the objections, and therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain the commercial dispute.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.