The Gujarat High Court has turned down a request from M/s Mahalaxmi Industries, which was challenging a tax demand of Rs. 1.46 Crore. This tax was claimed based on fraudulent invoices for Goods and Services Tax (GST) credits.
The court pointed out that the lawyer representing Mahalaxmi Industries had misled them by hiding important information about a related case that had already been withdrawn.
The division bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati said that:
“Thus, the statement made before us, by the learned advocate Mr. Gidwani, who appeared for both the petitioners, has mislead the Court… accordingly, the present writ petition stands rejected.”
M/s Mahalaxmi Industries submitted a writ petition in the High Court against an Order-in-Original dated 23.03.2026 passed u/s 74 of the CGST Act. The order had confirmed a demand of Rs. 1,46,76,034 against the applicant for illegally claiming ITC via invoices generated by non-existent entities situated in Delhi.
Revenue’s Senior Standing Counsel, Ms. Hetal Patel, stated that another writ petition (Special Civil Application No. 6227 of 2026) is pending for adjudication, which is related to the same Show-Cause Notice (dated 10.06.2023). The previous petition was submitted by M/s Mahalaxmi Metal Industries, a sister concern in the same industrial park and operated by similar persons. For filing a statutory appeal, the counsel of the applicant, Mr. Anil K Gidwani, has earlier withdrawn the same petition.
On questioning in this concern, Mr. Gidwani notified the Court that the common SCN was neither cited nor disputed in the previous appeal.
The Bench directed the Registry to submit the physical documents from the previous petition to check the claims made. After reviewing the materials, the Court concluded that the attorney’s assertion was categorically false, as the same Show-Cause Notice had been attached in the earlier writ suit. The Court noted that both companies employed the same method of obtaining fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) from non-existent firms in Delhi.
The High Court determined that the current petitioner should follow the same path as the previous petition, as the related business had withdrawn its claim to file a statutory appeal. The Court quashed the petition outright, finding no reason to consider the writ petition when a sufficient alternative remedy exists u/s 107 of the CGST Act.
| Case Title | Mahalaxmi Industries Vs Union of India & ORS |
| Case No. | Civil Application No. 9118 of 2026 |
| For Petitioner | Mr Anil K Gidwani |
| For Respondent | Ms Hetal G Patel |
| Gujarat High Court | Read Order |
