Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post an Article
Post a New Article
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Co Author :

In case of Co-Author, You may provide Username as per TMI records

Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Articles

Back

All Articles

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
- 0 - Views

Invocation of writ jurisdiction restricted by Delhi HC when allegation raised regarding fraudulent availment of ITC

Date 18 Jun 2025
Written By
Fraudulent Tax Credit Claims Denied: Legal Recourse Limited When Evidence Points to Systemic Manipulation Under Rule 86A
The Delhi High Court restricted writ jurisdiction in a case involving alleged fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) availment. The court dismissed the petition filed by a company challenging a tax order, noting discrepancies in the company's statements and highlighting the potential systemic damage from fraudulent ITC claims. The court emphasized that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when there are no natural justice violations and the petitioner lacks clean hands. - (AI Summary)

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/S. MAHESH FABRINOX PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. - 2025 (5) TMI 916 - DELHI HIGH COURT, dismissed the writ petition filed against the order passed wherein it was alleged that the Petitioner is involved in passing off of fraudulent ITC and further, limited the scope of invoking writ jurisdiction in such cases where there is violation of natural justice or jurisdictional error, especially when the Petitioner has not approached with clean hands. 

Facts:

M/s Mahesh Fabrinox Pvt. Ltd. ("the Petitioner") has filed the writ petition against the Order-in-Original dated February 01, 2025 (“the Impugned Order”), passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax (“the Respondent”). In the Impugned Order issued, the demand has been raised against the Petitioner for fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit ("ITC").

The Petitioner submitted that the reply was filed by the Petitioner, however, the same was not considered and no personal hearing was given prior to passing of the Impugned Order. Further, the Petitioner points out that in the said reply, it was clearly stated that in the year 2017-18, the Petitioner Firm had not even commenced its operations. Hence, there was no question of any supplies being taken from any other firm or entity in the said financial year.

Whereas the Respondent submits that three hearing notices were issued to the Petitioner for hearing. However, the said hearings were not attended by the Petitioner. In addition, it is submitted that prior to passing of the Impugned Order, the concerned authority had verified from the portal that no reply had been uploaded. In this regard, the Petitioner has also handed over a screenshot of the portal taken prior to passing the impugned order.

Issue:

Whether writ jurisdiction is to be invoked in cases where the allegation relates to fraudulent availment of ITC?

Held:

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in M/S. MAHESH FABRINOX PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. - 2025 (5) TMI 916 - DELHI HIGH COURT, held as under:

  • Observed that, the Impugned Order has been passed pursuant to the SCN dated August 04, 2024. The allegation in SCN and in the Impugned Order is that Mr. Karan Kumar Agarwal had created a network of firms in order to fraudulently avail of ITC by paying commissions to such firms. It is alleged that invoices were purportedly fabricated and raised by the said firms without supply of any goods and on the strength of the said invoices, ITC was availed. The Petitioner Company is one of the suppliers who has raised such invoices without any underlying supply of goods and has fraudulently passed on the benefit of ITC.
  • Further observed that, there is discrepancy in the stand taken by the Petitioner Director in its reply filed and the statement of the Petitioner recorded as in the statement it has been admitted by the Petitioner Director that there is fraudulent passing off of ITC.
  • Noted that, there is a pattern arising in such cases where the Order passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, relating to fraudulent ITC or have enabled the availment of fraudulent ITC, is being challenged by way of invoking writ jurisdiction before the Hon’ble High Court.
  • Further Noted that, large scale fraudulent availment of ITC without actual passing of goods or services may, if left unchecked, can lead to severe damage to the GST framework itself, which is meant to encourage legally entitled persons and businesses to avail of ITC and other similar facilities such as drawbacks etc.
  • Opined that, in such cases, so long as there is no violation of natural justice or jurisdictional error, writ jurisdiction should not be exercised, especially if the Petitioner has not come with clean hands.
  • Further Opined that, in the present case, there is no infraction, as the SCN was duly issued to the Petitioner and the personal hearing notices have also been provided.
  • Held that, the writ petition be dismissed with cost of INR One Lakh.

 (Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)

0 answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide

No Replies are present for this Article

Recent Articles