TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 2073
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Retail Limited under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing the Order-in-Original dated 03rd February, 2025 (hereinafter, 'impugned order') passed by the Respondent No. 2-Additional Commissioner, CGST Delhi, West Commissionerate. 3. Vide the impugned order, a demand has been raised against the Petitioner on various grounds in the following terms: "(i) I, hereby confirm the Invocation of the extended period of limitation as provided under Section 74 (1) of the CGST Act 2017 for demand and recovery of CST payable on M/s INFINITI RETAIL LIMITED (CROMA); (ii) I hereby, confirm the demand of the wrongly availed Input Tax Credit [CGST, SGST & IGST] collectively amounting to Rs. 91,59,91,060/- (Rupees Ninety-One Cro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e amount of GST as mentioned in paint (v) above. (vii) I, hereby, impost penalty equal to the amount of tax as mentioned in point (v) above from them under Section 74 (1) read with Section 74 (9) and read with Section 122 of the CGST Act, 2017 ana relevant provisions of Delhi GST Act, 2017 and Section 20 of IGST Act, 2017 and order to recover the same. (viii) I, hereby, confirm the demand of Interest amount to Rs. 19,31,640/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakh Thirty-One Thousand and Six Hundred Forty only) as detailed in Para No. 9 & 14 of the SCN from M/s INFINITY RETAIL LIMITED (CROMA) under Section 50 of the CGST Act, 2017 and order to recover the same." 4. The submission of Mr. Prakash Shah, ld. Senior Counsel for the Petitioner is that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....regard to the proposed demand. 11. The petitioner is also at liberty to file all the documents as considered necessary to contest the demands as proposed under the impugned SCN. 12. In view of the above directions, the petitioner will not be prejudiced by the audit report/audit memo in so far as the adjudication of the impugned SCN is concerned. 13. All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved." 5. As per the above-mentioned decision, the Adjudicating Authority was to not implicitly rely on the audit memo or the audit report but was to examine the Petitioner's reply and take an independent decision in respect of the demand raised against the Petitioner. 6. The submission on behalf of the Petitioner is that there is no ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and Service Tax (hereinafter, 'CGST') and State Goods and Service Tax (hereinafter, 'SGST') when it should have been ITC in respect of Integrated Goods and Service Tax (hereinafter, 'IGST'). The said relevant paragraph being paragraph 34 (l) of the impugned order is set out below: "I note that the noticee had taken ITC of CGST and SGST on the basis of invoices, which were issued by suppliers who were registered outside Delhi, which means that the place of supply in respect of such supplies was out of Delhi. In terms of the provisions of Section 16(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017, ITC of the tax paid by the suppliers is available to the recipient subject to the conditions that the recipient has received goods or services or both. Payment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act, 2017, various facts and documents would be required to be gone into to ascertain as to whether any of the demands are justified or not. The same would be beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction which this Court is presently exercising. 12. However, insofar as the appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 is concerned, there is a mandatory predeposit that is imposed by the statute of 10 % that would be required to be deposited by the Petitioner. The discussion in paragraph 34 (l) of the impugned order would show that at best even if the impugned order is correct, the question would be whether the availment of ITC would be qua IGST or qua SGST/CGST. The availment of ITC itself does not appear to be in questio....