2025 (7) TMI 1618

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....than 400 entities/individuals. 3. The case relates to availment of input tax credit (hereinafter, ITC) by 23 fake firms. There were allegations of existence of a total of 408 buyers/recipients from the said 23 fake firms which resulted in an investigation revealing that approximately Rs. 63.83 crores was availed as ITC. 4. Upon receiving notices, some of the parties, in fact, paid the ITC by reversing the same, including the interest and penalty charges. The Petitioner was one of the noticees. The case of the Petitioner is that a sum of Rs. 5,97,223/-, with the tax amount being Rs. 2,98,611/-, has been demanded from the Petitioner. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the invoice amount which was raised by the Petitioner wa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as introduced under Section 16 of the CGST Act is a major feature of the GST regime, which is business friendly and is meant to enable ease of doing business. 13. It is observed by this Court in a large number of writ petitions that this facility under Section 16 of the CGST Act has been misused 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 f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion 122(3) of the CGST Act. 18. The persons, who are involved in such transactions, cannot be allowed to try different remedies before different forums, inasmuch as the same would also result in multiplicity of litigation and could also lead to contradictory findings of different Forums, Tribunals and Courts." 7. Further reliance is placed upon the decision of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5121 of 2021 titled The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Others vs. M/s Commercial Steel Limited wherein it has been held that a writ petition can be entertained under exceptional circumstances only which are set out in the said judgment as under: "11. The respondent had a statutory remedy under section 107. Instead of ava....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch are available in terms of Section 107 of the CGST Act to pursue the grievance in regard to the action which has been adopted by the state in the present case." Under these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. 8. Mr. Sarkar, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that a personal hearing was fixed in this matter on 13th December, 2024 and the Petitioner got the notice for the same only on 12th December, 2024. 9. Thereafter, a reply was filed on behalf of the Petitioner on 10th December, 2024, however, the same has not been considered while passing the impugned order. A perusal of the impugned order would show that some of the parties have in fact appeared in the matter. Relevant portion....