2025 (7) TMI 986

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....en raised on the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 65,21,410/-. 3. The said demand arises out of a Show Cause Notice dated 18th November, 2024 (hereinafter, 'the SCN') to which the Petitioner had filed a reply dated 6th December, 2024, but the same has been considered and rejected on the ground that the GST Registration of the suppliers has been cancelled and the suppliers are non-existent. The impugned order holds that the firms are non-existent and no supply of goods and services has actually taken place. 4. The SCN was issued containing the following heads: i. Under declaration of ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC) ii. ITC claimed from cancelled dealers, returned defaulters and tax non-payers. 5. In so far as the fi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d sparingly and in exceptional cases. The relevant portions of the said judgment are set out 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 businesses to get input tax on the goods and services which are manufactured/supplied by them in the ch....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nder Section 107 of the CGST Act. One of the conoticees, who is also the son of the Petitioner i.e. Mr. Anuj Garg, has already appealed before the Appellate Authority. 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,....