TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1514
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt Commissioner, Central GST, Vadodara-I. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under : 3.1. The petitioner is a proprietor of M/s. KSEG India International and doing scrap business since two decades. 3.2. The petitioner was registered under the provisions of Central Sales Tax Act and the Value Added Tax Act and after coming into force of the Goods and Services Tax Act, the petitioner was registered under the provisions of the Central/State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'the GST Act'). 3.3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner filed regular returns as required under the provisions of the GST Act. 3.4. An information was received by the letter dated 04.10.2018 from the Joint Commissioner (Preventive), CGST, Ahmedabad South by the respondents to the effect that M/s. S.K. Enterprise, Ahmedabad is indulging in generating invoices and passing on GST credit to other Companies without any actual movement of goods and has passed on the GST credit to the M/s. KSEG India International, Vadodara. 3.5. On the basis of such information, a search operation was conducted at the premises of the petitioner on 11.01.2019 and relevant documents i.e. pur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7th February, 2022, it was stated that Mr. Keshavkumar Sharma has left his Company and all the documents for the years 2017-18 and 2018-19 except seized by the Department on 11.01.2019 had been lost in Ghaziabad by the said person. 3.10. The respondent No. 2 thereafter extended the investigation towards verification of various vehicles used in the transactions between the petitioner firm and various other firms who were alleged to have provided the Invoices without supply of the goods and it was found during the investigation that no E-Way Bill during the period from May, 2018 to March, 2021 was available for the supply of the goods to M/s. KSEG by four firms i.e. M/s. M&M. Enterprise, M/s. Riteshkumar Arvindbhai Parekh, M/s. Fairwell Sales Private Limited and M/s. Ajay Enterprise. During the investigation, it was further revealed that the fake/dubious ITC were passed on by M/s. KSEG in respect of fifteen firms and accordingly, a search was again conducted on 08.07.2021 at the premises of the petitioner at Vadodara by the Officers of the Preventive Section of the CGST&CE, Vadodara-I and purchase ledger of the fifteen units were seized. Thereafter, on further investigation, it wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....leased to issue writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the impugned order, summons at Annexure "I" and impugned summons and ongoing actions of the Respondents and issue writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ directing the Respondents to refund the bond amount; B. The Hon'ble Court would be pleased to stay the impugned actions of the Respondents from further inquiry and actions of further issuance of the summons against the Petitioner, pending hearing and final disposal of the petition; BB. The Hon'ble Court would be pleased to waive/modify/amend the conditions vide letter dated 15.10.2019 as imposed by the Deputy Commissioner, pending hearing and final disposal of the petition, in the overall interest of justice." 3.14. This Court by order dated 06.05.2024 passed the following order : "Heard learned advocate Mr. Pavan S. Godiawala for the petitioner/applicant and learned advocate Mr. Utkarsh Sharma for the respondent No. 4. Order in Civil Application : This application is filed for the amendment of the Special Civil Application by placing on record the show-cause notice dated 31st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the respondent-authorities undertakes to complete the entire adjudication process within three months from today with the co-operation of the petitioner. 5. Considering the above submissions and considering the manner in which the present petition is filed making grievance against the conduct of the respondent Officers in conducting the inquiry as well as issuing the impugned show-cause notice, without entering into merits of the matter and in view of the fact that the matter is pending since 2019 and the impugned show-cause notice is issued before one year on 31.03.2023, the petition is disposed of with the following directions. (i) The petitioner shall co-operate in adjudication process of the show-cause notice, (ii) The respondent-authorities shall not cause any harassment to the petitioner and after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner including the opportunity to cross-examine, if the petitioner requests for cross-examination of any of the person who is referred to in the relied upon the documents, shall pass the order in Form GST DRC-07 disposing of the show-cause notice issued under Section 74 read with Section 70 and in accordance ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submitted that the impugned order is passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his Advocate and without affording any opportunity of cross-examination as prayed for by the petitioner on 04.10.2024. It was submitted that this petition is filed for a limited purpose so as to avail the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses which was proposed by the petitioner in the application dated 04.10.2024. 4.2. It was therefore submitted that the petitioner is not desirous to make any submission on merits but the matter may be remanded back to the respondent-Authority only for the purpose of granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as the Advocate for the petitioner could not remain present on two occasions i.e. on 26.12.2024 and on 15.01.2025 which is reflected in the impugned order. 4.3. Learned advocate Mr. Paval Godiawala further submitted that the respondent-Authority never intimated the petitioner that the cross-examination, so far as the Officers of the Departments are concerned, could not be granted though they are the persons who have issued the summons and also named in the relied upon documents and the petitioner was required to cross-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the GST Act as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Others Versus M/s. Commercial Steel Limited as under : "11. The respondent had a statutory remedy under section 107. Instead of availing of the remedy, the respondent instituted a petition under Article 226. The existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. But a writ petition can be entertained in exceptional circumstances where there is: (i) a breach of fundamental rights; (ii) a violation of the principles of natural justice; (iii) an excess of jurisdiction; or (iv) a challenge to the vires of the statute or delegated legislation. 12. In the present case, none of the above exceptions was established. There was, in fact, no violation of the principles of natural justice since a notice was served on the person in charge of the conveyance. In this backdrop, it was not appropriate for the High Court to entertain a writ petition. The assessment of facts would have to be carried out by the appellate authority. As a matter of fact,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to Shri Vijay Kumar Jani. Despite these efforts and the ample time and opportunities provided, he did not appear for a personal hearing. The other individuals mentioned by the taxpayer do not appear in the relied-upon documents, and no valid reason for their cross-examination has been provided. Therefore, the request for their cross-examination is not entertained. 25.4.2. I find that the taxpayer sought cross-examination, as validated by the Hon'ble High Court order dated 06.05.2024, of Shri Vijay Vijubhai Jani, who is a commission agent or mediator facilitating the availability of scrap between purchasers and sellers. The taxpayer was aware of his involvement in the case, as evidenced by the recorded statement of Shri Vijay Vijubhai Jani dated 15.02.2019. However, the taxpayer's request for cross-examination lacked substantive reasoning or justification. Despite the opportunity for cross-examination being provided to Shri Vijay Vijubhai Jani, neither the taxpayer nor Shri Jani appeared to proceed with it. Given these facts and circumstances, the claim for cross-examination is deemed invalid and baseless, rendering it untenable. In this regard, I ....