TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1893
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... notices have been served upon the Petitioner. 3. Yesterday i.e., 20th May, 2025 the matter was listed, and the same was adjourned for today to enable the ld. Counsel for the Department to obtain instructions as to the manner in which and the hearing notices have been served. 4. Mr. Anurag Ojha, ld. Senior Standing Counsel has handed over the email and the communications which have been sent to the Petitioner both qua the SCN and also qua the hearing notices. According to Mr. Ojha, the emails have been sent to the Petitioner not at one email address but in fact at two email addresses i.e., [email protected] and [email protected] on 26th May 2022 at 7:46 a.m. He also submits that all the three hearing notices have been issued to the Petitioners after duly generating the DIN. The said hearing notices were issued on 9th January, 2025, 15th January, 2025 and 16th January, 2025. 5. Mr. Anand, ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, however, disputes this and submits that the email which was received by the Petitioner had gone to the junk box and was received from [email protected]. Screenshot of the email in the junk of the Petitioner's email id is reli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot and documents were resumed. Summons dated 19.09.2019 were issued to them, and Shri Manish Kapil, their Manager and husband of Smt. Reetu Verma Kapil, Partner of the said firm, appeared and his Statement dated 25.09.2019 was recorded under section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017. He stated that these invoices were issued by them to M/s Joles Trado Pvt. Ltd. and Sh. Ritesh Aggarwal had contacted them for the said orders. On being queried as to the actual transportation of said goods declared on the invoices, he stated that the consignee own transportation. However, there were no particulars provided of the same. 6.6.1 On verification of GSTR-2A M/s Joles Trado Pvt. Ltd, it was found that they had availed input tax credit of Rs. 7,65,51,6331-(CGST of Rs.87,00,771/-+ SGST of Rs. 87,00,771/-+ Cess of Rs. 5,91,50,091/-) on the invoices issued by M/s Aushta Enterprises. However, neither M/s Joles Trado Pvt. Ltd. nor M/s Aushta Enterprises could provide any proof of actual transport of said goods and delivery thereof. As such, it appears that M/s Joles Trado Pvt. Ltd., which was found to be a dummy company only on paper as its rent agreement was fake and its Director's were fake /....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and the investigation that was going on. The Petitioner did not choose to file any reply to the notice or give any explanation as to the manner in which the sales were made including any justification to show that the invoices were not goods-less or that there was actual supply of goods. Even the hearing notices have been issued repeatedly and this fact is is captured in paragraph 8.1 and 8.2 of the impugned order which read as under: "8.1 PH dated 14.01.2025; 15.01.2025; 17.01.2025; 20.01.2025 & 21.01.2025 were granted to the Noticees as mentioned in Table, above, for providing them opportunities for the personal hearing. However, some of them appeared and made their Oral as well as Written submission which have been duly considered. Further, w.r.t. to remaining Noticees, it has been observed that neither the Noticees nor their Authorized Representatives appeared for the personal hearing on any of the dates fixed for them. Therefore, I am compelled to decide the case ex-parte, for such non-responsive Noticees, on the basis of evidence(s) already available on record. 8.2 It is evident that the conduct of the Noticees is evasive. In my opinion, no purpose will be s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hall 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." 16. This Court, in Mukesh Kumar Garg, has also held that in cases involving fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC), particularly where the evasion runs into crores of rupees causing substantial loss to the Revenue, the invoking of writ jurisdiction would be uncalled for and unwarranted. The relevant portion of the said judgment is also extracted below: "11. The Court has considered the matter under Article 226 of 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 non-existent 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 busine....