TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1438
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Petitioners challenging inter alia the order-in-original dated 02nd February, 2025 (hereinafter, 'the impugned order') by which demands and penalties have been raised against the Petitioner entity-M/s Banson Enterprises. 4. The impugned order arises out of show cause notice dated 03rd August, 2024 (hereinafter, 'the SCN'). 5. The allegations raised by the Department against the Petitioner entity in the said SCN is that a search was conducted at the premises of the Petitioner entity and it was revealed that the Petitioner entity had issued goods-less invoices to various entities in order to enable fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (hereinafter, 'ITC'). The ITC which was availed by the Petitioner entity was to the tune of Rs. 1,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5121 of 2021 titled The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Others vs. M/s Commercial Steel Limited as also upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Tax No. 753 of 2023 titled Elesh Aggarwal vs. Union of India. 9. It is further submitted by counsel for the Respondent that the statement of Mr. Bansal-Petitioner No. 2, being one of the Directors of the Petitioner entity has been recorded where he admits that he supplied goods-less invoices of taxable value 45,04,500/- to one M/s Saraswati Printers during Central Excise period i.e. from 30th June, 2016 to 21st March, 2017. Under such circumstances, it is submitted that the Petitioner ought to be relegated to the Appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the merits of the case of the respondent. 13. For the above reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court. The writ petition filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed. However, this shall not preclude the respondent from taking recourse to appropriate remedies which are available in terms of Section 107 of the CGST Act to pursue the grievance in regard to the action which has been adopted by the state in the present case. 11. The above legal position has also been reiterated in Elesh Aggarwal (supra) wherein the Allahabad High Court has held that no ground is made for interference on merits in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction. 12. The nature of the allegation against the Petitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Constitution of India, which is an exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The allegations against the Petitioner in the impugned order are extremely serious in nature. They reveal the complex maze of transactions, which are alleged to have been carried out between various nonexistent firms for the sake of enabling fraudulent availment of the ITC. 12. The entire concept of Input Tax Credit, as recognized under Section 16 of the CGST Act is for enabling businesses to get input tax on the goods and services which are manufactured/supplied by them in the chain of business transactions. The same is meant as an incentive for businesses who need not pay taxes on the inputs, which have already been taxed at the source itself. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 16. Insofar as exercise of writ jurisdiction itself is concerned, it is the settled position that this jurisdiction ought not be exercised by the Court to support the unscrupulous litigants. 17. Moreover, when such transactions are entered into, a factual analysis would be required to be undertaken and the same cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. The Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, cannot adjudicate upon or ascertain the factual aspects pertaining to what was the role played by the Petitioner, whether the penalty imposed is justified or not, whether the same requires to be reduced proportionately in terms of the invoices raised by the Petitioner under his firm or whether penalty is liable to be imposed under S....