Writ Petition Dismissed for Fraudulent ITC Claim and Non-Participation in Investigation under GST Rules

The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging the demand raised for fraudulent availment and utilization of inadmissible ITC by the Petitioner. The Court noted that the Petitioner was fully aware of the ongoing investigation and failed to participate in the proceedings. The delay in issuance of the impugned order was found to be within the limitation period, as the order was signed and dated on 1st February, 2025, despite the document being uploaded later. The Court held that such callous conduct could not be condoned and declined to interfere, resulting in dismissal of the petition.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

• Whether the impugned Show Cause Notice and Order-in-Original, alleging fraudulent availment and utilization of inadmissible Input Tax Credit (ITC) by the petitioner, are valid and sustainable.
• Whether the petitioner's failure to participate in personal hearings and file replies affects the adjudication of the case.
• Whether the impugned order was passed within the prescribed period of limitation under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
• Whether the petitioner is entitled to interim relief or any other relief in the writ petition challenging the impugned order.
• Whether the petitioner can be permitted to avail appellate remedy notwithstanding dismissal of the writ petition.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity and sustainability of the impugned Show Cause Notice and Order-in-Original alleging fraudulent availment and utilization of inadmissible ITC

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) governs the grant and utilization of ITC. Fraudulent availment of ITC through issuance of invoices without actual supply of goods is prohibited and subject to penalty and recovery. The law mandates investigation and adjudication upon issuance of Show Cause Notices.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The impugned order is based on detailed investigation and scrutiny revealing that certain individuals allegedly created and controlled multiple fake firms, issuing invoices without actual supply of goods. The investigation included searches, seizure of documents, recording of statements, and examination of transport vehicle registrations which were inconsistent with the claimed goods movement.

Key evidence and findings: Searches conducted on 31st July, 2018 yielded documents and digital evidence. Statements of the alleged masterminds and other connected persons were recorded. The transport vehicles' registrations included scooters and three-wheelers, unsuitable for transporting claimed goods. The total fraudulent ITC availed was quantified at approximately Rs. 50.33 crores.

Application of law to facts: The findings indicate that the petitioner was involved in a chain of transactions involving dummy and fake firms passing inadmissible ITC. The impugned order, after following principles of natural justice, held the petitioner liable for the fraudulent availment of ITC.

Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner contended that its GST registration was suspended and hence it could not file a reply. However, the Court observed that the petitioner was aware of the investigation and failed to participate in personal hearings or file any submissions, which could not be condoned.

Conclusions: The Court upheld the impugned order as valid and sustainable, given the detailed investigation and evidence of fraudulent ITC availment.

Issue 2: Effect of petitioner's failure to participate in personal hearings and file replies

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Principles of natural justice require that noticees be given an opportunity of personal hearing before adverse orders are passed. However, non-appearance or failure to file replies permits the adjudicating authority to proceed on the basis of available evidence.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The impugned order records that personal hearings were granted on three occasions, but the petitioner (noticee no. 15) neither appeared nor filed any reply. The Court emphasized that the petitioner's conduct amounted to callousness and non-participation in the proceedings.

Key evidence and findings: The record showed that some noticees appeared and filed replies, but the petitioner did not. The petitioner's counsel admitted to non-filing due to suspension of GST registration and infrequent use of the GST portal.

Application of law to facts: The Court held that the petitioner's failure to participate cannot be excused, especially in a matter involving alleged fraudulent ITC of substantial amount.

Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner argued inability to file replies due to registration suspension. The Court rejected this as a sufficient excuse, noting that notices were uploaded on the GST portal and the petitioner was aware of the investigation.

Conclusions: The petitioner's failure to participate justified the adjudicating authority proceeding on available facts and records, and the Court declined to interfere.

Issue 3: Whether the impugned order was passed within the period of limitation

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The CGST Act prescribes limitation periods for issuance of orders and recovery of tax demands. Timely issuance of orders is essential for validity.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The impugned order was signed and dated 1st February, 2025. Although the DRC-07 form was uploaded on 9th February, 2025, the Court held that the order itself was passed within the prescribed limitation period.

Key evidence and findings: The date of signing and issuance of the impugned order was clear on record. The uploading of associated documents later did not affect the limitation.

Application of law to facts: The Court applied the statutory provisions and held that the impugned order was not barred by limitation.

Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner argued belated issuance of the order. The Court rejected this, relying on the date of the order itself rather than subsequent procedural steps.

Conclusions: The impugned order was validly passed within the limitation period.

Issue 4: Entitlement to interim relief or other relief in the writ petition

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Interim relief in tax matters is granted sparingly, especially where there is evidence of fraudulent tax practices. The Court exercises discretion based on facts and conduct of parties.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: Given the petitioner's non-participation and the serious nature of the allegations, the Court was not inclined to grant interim relief. The petitioner's only argument was delay in passing the order, which was rejected.

Key evidence and findings: No substantive defense or reply was filed by the petitioner. The investigation and findings were detailed and supported the demand.

Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principle that relief cannot be granted where there is prima facie evidence of fraud and the petitioner has not cooperated.

Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner sought interim relief and exemption from personal hearing attendance, which were denied.

Conclusions: The writ petition and all pending applications were dismissed, and costs were imposed on the petitioner.

Issue 5: Permission to avail appellate remedy despite dismissal of writ petition

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The CGST Act provides for appellate remedies under Section 107. Filing of appeal within limitation and payment of pre-deposit are conditions for admission.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court acknowledged that the petitioner filed the writ petition within the limitation period prescribed for appeal. In the interest of justice, the petitioner was granted time till 31st August, 2025 to file the appeal with requisite pre-deposit.

Key evidence and findings: The petitioner's counsel submitted the intent to file appeal. The Court recorded this and granted specific time.

Application of law to facts: The Court exercised discretion to permit appellate remedy despite dismissal of writ petition, ensuring procedural fairness.

Treatment of competing arguments: No objections were raised to permitting the appeal. The Court emphasized that if appeal is filed within time and pre-deposit made, it shall be decided on merits and not dismissed as barred by limitation.

Conclusions: The petitioner was granted liberty to file appeal within stipulated time with pre-deposit, and the appeal will be adjudicated on merits.

---