TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1189
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of. W.P.(C) 9524/2025 & CM APPL. 40226/2025 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner-Utkash Arora, proprietor of M/s Aura Interior Hardware under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing the Order-in-Original bearing no. 82/ADC/D.N./Shaukat Ali Nurvi/2024-25 dated 27th January, 2025 (hereinafter, 'impugned order'). The said impugned order was dispatched to the Petitioner on 1st February, 2025. Vide the impugned order, a demand to the tune of Rs. 1,14,114 has been raised against the Petitioner. 4. The case of the Central Goods and Service Tax Department (hereinafter, 'Department') is that an investigation was initiated against three firms, namely, M/s Shreya Impex, M/s Akshita Enterprises....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oices issued from the Supplier firms. Invoices were issued only to pass-on the fake Input Tax Credit without any actual supply of goods or services to avail/ utilize inadmissible ITC, without receipt of concomitant goods and without having eligible ITC available to them. Further, I observed that in whole fake transactions, a total of 50 of the said Noticees deposited a part of their tax/interest/penalty liability. Further, some of the Noticees responded to the Summons issued to them. The details of replies and amount deposited through DRC-03 are tabulated in the Table 10 of the impugned SCN and the Table A above. However, most of the Noticees did not respond to the Summons or submitted any reply." 6. The Petitioner here....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Noticees in the matter. I observe that even though the basic requirement of Principles of Natural Justice has been legally and dutifully complied with, the Noticees have failed to avail the opportunity. I accordingly proceed further to decide the case on merits. 8. Further submission on behalf of the Petitioner is that there is no Show Cause Notice for the period 2020-21 but only for 2017-18. The impugned order clearly records in detail that it relates to the period 2017 to 2023. 9. The supplier firms being fake and non-existent, they were only created to issue fake invoices. Under these circumstances, in view of the opinion of this Court in W.P. (C) 5737/2025 titled Mukesh Kumar Garg vs. Union of India & Ors., the present writ pet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed by various individuals, firms, entities and companies to avail of ITC even when the output tax is not deposited or when the entities or individuals who had to deposit the output tax are themselves found to be not existent. Such misuse, if permitted to continue, would create an enormous dent in the GST regime itself. 14. As is seen in the present case, the Petitioner and his other family members are alleged to have incorporated or floated various firms and businesses only for the purposes of availing ITC without there being any supply of goods or services. The impugned order in question dated 30th January, 2025, which is under challenge, is a detailed order which consists of various facts as per the Department, which resulted in....