Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging the GST adjudication orders could be entertained in view of the disputed factual matrix, the alleged voluntary sharing of OTP, and the pending police investigation.
Analysis: The Petitioner's own pleadings and the status report indicated that the GST registration had been obtained in 2018, that an OTP had been shared with a third party, and that multiple firms were created using the registration for transactions involving alleged wrongful availment of ITC exceeding Rs. 50 crores. The factual controversy as to who operated the GST registration, who generated the invoices, and how the alleged fraudulent ITC was availed required investigation. Such questions could not be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Articles 226 and 227, particularly when police investigation was already underway and the record did not support a clear case of complete innocence.
Conclusion: The writ petitions were not entertained.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the impugned GST orders was declined in writ jurisdiction, leaving the Petitioner to pursue remedies available in law.
Ratio Decidendi: A writ court will not undertake a factual inquiry into alleged fraudulent tax transactions when the controversy turns on disputed questions of fact requiring investigation.