2025 (7) TMI 1610

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n challenges the impugned order dated 31st January, 2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Delhi West, by which a demand has been raised to the tune of Rs. 11,78,736/- against the Petitioner Firm. 4. The impugned order has been passed in respect of the Input Tax Credit (hereinafter "ITC") availed by the Petitioner Firm from a specific supplier namely M/s Shivoy Enterprises, whose GST registration was cancelled w.e.f. the date of registration which is prior to the date of invoices issued by the said firm. The said firm had raised 192 invoices qua the Petitioner Firm and therefore, the ITC is sought to be reversed in this case. 5. The submission of Mr. Mahna, ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner Fi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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 chain of business transactions. The same is meant as an incentive for businesses who need not pay taxes on the inputs, which have already been taxed at the source itself. The said facility, which was introduced under Sectio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n 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, whether the same requires to be reduced proportionately in terms of the invoices raised by the Petitioner under his firm or whether penalty is liable to be imposed under Section 122(1) and Section 122(3) of the CGST Act....