Hind Polyfabs faces a DGGI Rs 21.27 crore ITC notice

Hind Polyfabs Private Limited faces a pending Directorate General of GST Intelligence, or DGGI, notice alleging that it passed on Rs 21.27 crore of irregular integrated goods and services tax credit through invoices and e-way bills without actual supplies of plastic granules. The January 2026 notice also names promoter Ramesh Kumar Rateria as a noticee.

Why did DGGI issue Hind Polyfabs a Rs 21.27 crore ITC notice?

DGGI alleges that Hind Polyfabs issued tax invoices and e-way bills without actual movement or supply of plastic granules to 15 recipient entities. The show-cause-cum-demand notice, dated January 12 and January 14, 2026, concerns financial years 2020-21 through 2024-25 and alleges irregular input tax credit of Rs 21.27 crore in integrated goods and services tax, or IGST.

Input tax credit, or ITC, is a credit available under the goods and services tax system for eligible tax paid on inward supplies. The DGGI notice alleges that the ITC passed on by Hind Polyfabs was inadmissible because the invoices did not correspond to actual supplies of the underlying goods. The allegation is therefore distinct from a disclosure of a mismatch between returns or a routine demand arising from an audit.

The notice asks Hind Polyfabs to show cause why a penalty of Rs 21.27 crore should not be imposed under Section 122(1)(ii) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Section 127 of that Act and Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The proceeding is pending, meaning the disclosed notice is not a final adjudication or a final determination of liability.

Who is named in the DGGI proceeding against Hind Polyfabs?

Hind Polyfabs is Noticee No. 1 and Ramesh Kumar Rateria is Noticee No. 2 in the DGGI proceeding. The prospectus identifies Ramesh as a director of Hind Polyfabs and a promoter of the issuer, which is why the matter appears in both the group-company and promoter tax-proceedings disclosures.

The notice asks Hind Polyfabs to explain why the Rs 21.27 crore penalty should not be imposed for allegedly passing on inadmissible ITC. It separately asks Ramesh to show cause why a penalty under Section 122(1A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act should not be imposed on him. The disclosure does not quantify a separate penalty amount proposed against Ramesh under that provision.

The promoter tax table lists one GST case against Ramesh with an amount involved of Rs 21.27 crore. That entry should not be read as establishing an additional demand of Rs 21.27 crore against him, because the detailed disclosure describes a single DGGI notice in which Hind Polyfabs and Ramesh are separate noticees. The alleged amount is the IGST credit said to have been passed on by Hind Polyfabs.

How does the Hind Polyfabs DGGI notice compare with other group GST cases?

The DGGI notice accounts for about 90% of the Rs 23.71 crore aggregate amount listed for Hind Polyfabs' five Kolkata GST proceedings. The comparison measures disclosed amounts involved rather than final liabilities, because the entries include notices, orders and pending proceedings with different procedural status.

The Hind Polyfabs aggregate also includes a September 6, 2022 DRC-01 notice for audit of financial years 2017-18 to 2018-19 involving Rs 20.49 lakh, an August 28, 2024 notice for financial year 2019-20 involving Rs 1.40 crore, and a December 23, 2025 order involving Rs 82.26 lakh for excess ITC claimed for financial year 2021-22. It also includes a March 3, 2023 MOV-09 order involving Rs 1.24 lakh.

Jupax Vaniya Private Limited's Rs 7.71 crore aggregate includes a January 14, 2026 show-cause notice alleging fake invoices passed to various entities during financial years 2020-21 to 2024-25. That notice records a proposed penalty of Rs 5.32 crore, including Rs 30 lakh voluntarily deposited that the notice seeks to adjust. Maruti Packers Private Limited's Rs 3.8816 crore total includes GST orders and an August 28, 2025 show-cause notice.

What payment has Hind Polyfabs made and what remains in dispute?

Hind Polyfabs deposited Rs 35 lakh through DRC-03 on March 20, 2025 during the DGGI investigation. The January 2026 notice proposes that the amount be appropriated against the proposed Rs 21.27 crore penalty, rather than treating it as a separate amount from the notice.

The prospectus continues to state Rs 21.27 crore as the aggregate amount involved in the DGGI case. It does not say that DGGI has withdrawn the allegation, accepted a response from Hind Polyfabs, appropriated the Rs 35 lakh deposit, or issued an order after the notice. Whether the deposit is adjusted and the amount ultimately determined will depend on the pending proceeding.

Hind Polyfabs states that it is in the process of filing its reply within the prescribed period. The notice is returnable before the Additional or Joint Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, Kolkata North Commissionerate. The disclosure identifies that authority for the show-cause process and does not report a court decision in the matter.

Does the DGGI notice name the IPO issuer?

The detailed DGGI disclosure names Hind Polyfabs and Ramesh, not Injecto Polymers Limited, as the noticees. Injecto Polymers reports the matter in its tax-proceedings chapter because Hind Polyfabs is a group company and Ramesh is a promoter.

Injecto Polymers separately lists three indirect-tax GST matters involving Rs 1.45 lakh in its own tax-proceedings table. The issuer also received an ASMT-10 notice dated October 24, 2024 concerning financial year 2020-21, which cited a Rs 26.56 lakh difference between GSTR-3B returns and e-way bill information, a Rs 21,555 difference in reverse-charge mechanism liability, and excess ITC compared with GSTR-2A. The prospectus says no demand notice had been issued in that matter and that its tax liability remained uncertain.

The two disclosures therefore concern different entities and different stated issues. The Hind Polyfabs case alleges invoices and e-way bills without actual supply of plastic granules, while the issuer's ASMT-10 matter concerns stated discrepancies in GST filings and related information. Neither disclosure reports a final adjudication of the DGGI allegation as of the prospectus date.

Conclusion

Hind Polyfabs' Rs 21.27 crore DGGI proceeding is the largest amount within the Rs 23.711 crore aggregate reported for its Kolkata GST cases. Its significance arises from the allegation of invoices and e-way bills without actual supplies across five financial years, and from the inclusion of promoter Ramesh as a separate noticee.

The disclosed next step is Hind Polyfabs' reply within the prescribed period before the Kolkata North GST authority. The matters to watch are whether the authority appropriates the Rs 35 lakh DRC-03 deposit, how it addresses the alleged ITC amount, and whether it imposes any penalty on Hind Polyfabs or Ramesh under the cited provisions.