AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1783
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....volves a large-scale fraudulent scheme under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, uncovered by the Medchal GST Commissionerate. The principal accused, Shri Okha Ram, proprietor of M/s. Shakti Steel India, in collusion with others including Shri Vikas Saraf (accountant/auditor), and individuals like Shri Arjun Chowdhary and Shri Kiran Chowdhary, orchestrated the creation of multiple bogus firms. These firms issued fake invoices without actual supply of goods to avail and pass on fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to several crores of rupees. The investigation revealed that GST registrations were obtained using identity proofs and bank details of unwitting or minor participants in exchange for monthly payments. These ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act, accused No.1 himself stated that he was not well-versed in accounts or computer operations and that he used to send handwritten invoice copies to the petitioner for digitization and GST filing. This clearly indicates that the petitioner merely acted upon instructions and documents provided by accused No.1 in his capacity as a consultant, and there is no evidence to show that the petitioner fabricated any invoices on his own. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that statements of other individuals have no evidentiary value when accused No.1 has himself admitted to preparing the invoices and handing them over to the petitioner and that the firm of accused No.1, M/s. Shakti Steel India, has been in existence since 2008 unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng accused No.1 in fraudulently availing ITC. It is contended that the adjudication authority acted mechanically, merely relying on statements from the criminal investigation without independent assessment. The petitioner has challenged the said adjudication order before the appellate authority, and the appeal is currently pending consideration. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has been identified as the principal mastermind behind a wide network of fictitious GST-registered firms engaged in the generation and circulation of fake invoices with the intent to fraudulently a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....statements indicate that the petitioner handled all technical and financial aspects of the GST filings and transactions of his firm, establishing the petitioner's active role in the fraud. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner's contention regarding the adjudication proceedings is misconceived. Both the criminal and adjudication processes were independently initiated by the GST department, and the adjudication proceedings were conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was given an opportunity to present his case, submit documents, and attend a personal hearing, and the quasi-judicial order was passed based on the material on record. If aggrieved, the petitioner has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sued by Respondent No.2 did not clarify whether he was being summoned as an accused or a witness, thereby violating Instruction No.3/2022-23. However, it is noted that the summons in question were issued in the year 2020, while the cited instruction came into effect much later. Hence, the instruction cannot operate retrospectively, and there is no merit in this contention. 14. The third contention is that the department has already adjudicated the matter and imposed a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- on the petitioner, and such adjudication based solely on statements recorded by the investigating officer and he already filed appeal against the said finding, whereas, the said departmental finding is in force as on today. Therefore, it is not a gr....