TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1246
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that remedy of appeal under Section 107(1) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short - '2017 Act') and Rule 108 of CGST Rules, 2017 is available submits that the same is not an efficacious remedy available to the petitioner, therefore, present writ petition should be entertained. It is vehemently argued by learned counsel for petitioner that authorities have placed strong reliance upon report dated 11.01.2020, Annexure P5, rendered by a so-called expert, same is also mentioned in show cause notice dated 10.02.2023. It is pleaded that upon intelligence gathered by officers of Central Goods and Service Tax Commissionerate, Ludhiana it was indicated that petitioner - Firm for the period from July 2017 to November 2019 had discharg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re issued to some of the suppliers of petitioner - Firm, which supplied requisite documents. Forensic examination of two devices i.e. laptop and assembled CPU from the business premises of petitioner - Firm was conducted on 22.11.2022 in the presence of authorized signatory of petitioner and two independent witnesses. Proceedings of data retrieval were recorded under two panchnamas of even date i.e. 22.11.2022. Statement of authorized signatory of petitioner was recorded under Section 70 of 2017 Act on 22.12.2022, 28.12.2022 and 30.12.2022 as is also detailed in show cause notice. Show cause notice to the petitioner was issued as to why GST amounting of Rs. 3,34,90,886/- [CGST Rs. 1,67,45,443 + SGST - Rs. 1,67,45,443] should not be demanded....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,20,992/- +13,74,268/- + 7,50,408/- + 2,21,934/+ 9,48,318/+8,85,792/ + 1,70,248/-] upon M/s Jai Ramji Pipes, Backside VD Kanda, Amloh Road, mandi Gobindgarh-147301(having GSTIN 03AAFFJ4844C1ZS) under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and the PGST Act, 2017. However, I give him and option to pay penalty 50% if they deposit whole amount alongwith interest as described in 5(i) & 5(ii) above within thirty days of communication of this order under Section 74(11) of the CGST Act, 2017 and the PGST Act, 2017. 1 further order to appropriate amounting Rs. 1,70,248/- already deposited by them vide DRC-03 dated 11.01.2020 towards penalty. (iv) I impose penalty of Rs. 8,05,864/ (Rs. 4,02,932/ each of CGST & PGST) [Rs. 3,15,716/-+ 4,90,148] upon M/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- 03AAAFH8250M1ZE) under Section 122(1) (i) of the CGST Act, 2017 and the PGST Act, 2017. (x) I impose penalty of Rs. 25,000/- each of CGST & PGST upon Sh. Kamaldeep Singh Khokar, partner of M/s H.L. Chopra Steel Rolling Mills, Khanna under Section 122(3)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017 and the PGST Act, 2017. 5. Aggrieved therefrom, petitioner has filed present writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently argued that reliance has been placed by authorities upon report dated 11.01.2020 submitted by so-called expert Jaspal Singh, Chartered Engineer. His very presence at the premises of petitioner - Firm is doubtful. Serious objection in this regard had been raised before Assessing Authority, which while passing order dated 31.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be carried out in a routine manner and in fact High Court would normally not entertain the writ petition where efficacious alternate remedy is available until and unless extraordinary circumstances for the same are pointed out. This has so been reiterated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Godrej Sara Lee (supra) which has been relied upon by petitioner itself. 10. It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon and others, 2010 (8) SCC 110 as under:- "18. While expressing the aforesaid view, we are conscious that the powers conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, directions, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion. Therefore, the High Court should be extremely careful and circumspect in exercising its discretion to grant stay in such matters. Of course, if the petitioner is able to show that its case falls within any of the exceptions carved out in Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad AIR 1969 SC 556, Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai (1998) 8 SCC 1 and Harbanslal Sahnia and another v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others (2003) 2 SCC 107 and some other judgments, then the High Court may, after considering all the relevant parameters and public interest, pass appropriate interim order. xxx xxx xxx 25. In Raj Kumar Shivhare v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement and another (2010) 4 ....