TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 769
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petitioner is a proprietor of a firm Devika Bullion, engaged in trading gold bullion and related items. According to the petitioner, the petitioner's firm has been scrupulously following the guidelines of the Government, including uploading of the invoices issued by the petitioner's firm on the E-invoicing portal of the Government as well as uploading of the invoices from where goods are purchased on the website. It is the petitioner's case, that on compliance of the procedure, the petitioner's firm was eligible to avail ITC, reflected in the Credit Ledger. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's firm has issued proper invoices in compliance of the statutory provisions as mandated under the CGST Act, 2017, and has made the payment of invoice value, including the amount of tax, through proper banking channel. 3. It is contended by the petitioner that inspite of following the procedure, the respondent No. 2 issued a communication to the petitioner on 27th January, 2021, for reversal of ITC (Input Tax Credit) passed on to him by his supplier M/s. Mahaveer Bullion. The petitioner appeared before the respondents and submitted the documents. According to the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been issued summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017. The purpose of summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, is to summon persons whose attendance is necessary either to give evidence or to produce a document or anything in any inquiry in the same manner as in Civil Court, under the provisions of C.P.C. The petitioner apprehends that the respondent No. 2 in exercise of his power under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017, would arrest him in violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. 7. The petitioner places reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Gujrat V/s. Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer reported in (2023) 8 Centax 224 (S.C.) [17-03-2023] wherein it has been held that, if a person fears that his personal liberty is likely to be curtailed, he can approach the High Court in its writ jurisdiction, seeking protection orders. Hence, the petitioner is seeking Protection Orders from this Court. 8. Reply affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 2 opposing the writ petition. It is stated in the affidavit that, the intelligence revealed that, M/s. Devika Bullion i.e. petitioner's firm had availed fake ITC during the fina....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... course of investigation, the major suppliers of the petitioner were found to be non-existent at the given registered addresses. The petitioner has availed ITC, amounting to Rs. 10.38 Crores, on the strength of purchase invoices issued by the non-existent/ bogus suppliers without any actual supply of goods, and passed on ineligible ITC to its recipients during the said period. The said Act is in violation to Section 16(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, read with section 155 of the Act. 12. The respondents have also given the details of the visits to the given addresses of the suppliers in a tabular form, with the Tax Value of which, ITC is claimed by the petitioner. The place of business registered as well as residential address declared by the petitioner while obtaining GST registration was found to be fake. It is contended by the respondent that, the petitioner has availed the ITC of 10.38 Crores approximately on the strength of purchase invoices issued by the non-existent suppliers, which is in violation of Section 16(2) of the GST Act, 2017, which reads as under : "16(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, no registered person shall be entitled to the credit of any i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner to prove that he is eligible for the said ITC. 14. We have heard the parties at length and after hearing the parties it appears that, the petitioner's registered suppliers were found to be non-existent at their registered address and the petitioner has availed ITC on the basis of purchase invoices issued by the non-existent/ bogus suppliers, without any actual supply of goods. Prima facie, the same is in clear violation of Section 16(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. It is pertinent to note that, the petitioner's firm, is not in existence on the three addresses given as the registered addresses, but even the suppliers, from whom the petitioner has claimed to have purchased the goods, are non-existent at their given address. The petitioner has not come before this Court with clean hands. The petitioner has been time and again issued various summons adhering to the provisions of law, in order to provide an opportunity to the petitioner, to participate in the investigation and put forth his case. He has failed to participate in the proceedings on various occasions. The fake addresses of the petitioner's firm as well as suppliers do not make him eligible for any protection from this Court....