TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 394
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C) on its inward supplies received from its suppliers. Following the same, the petitioner had not only availed but had also utilized the ITC. Consequent upon scrutiny and in the facts morefully stated in the order dated 1st September, 2023 while invoking Section 86A of the WBGST / CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act") the petitioner's electronic credit ledger was blocked. Still later, a show-cause notice dated 31st November, 2023 was issued, inter alia, on the ground that in course of scrutiny of returns and the inward B2B supply as auto populated in GSTR 2A for the period 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23, it was detected that the petitioner had claimed and utilized ITC against the inward supplies from Sri Shyam Sundar Tiwari having trading name, M/s Rachna Trading Co., whose registration had been cancelled suo moto from the date of registration under Section 29(2)(e) of the said Act and further since it was detected that the said Shyam Sundar Tiwari had no business activity or existence at the address of the place of business since inception and was non-existent, the ITC having been availed by the petitioner on the strength of fake tax invoices and fake e way bill....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2024 and had clarified its position. Along with such response the petitioner had disclosed additional materials in the form of Toll plaza reports in respect of two transport vehicles. At that stage, no request was made by the petitioner for cross examination of any other persons. 6. On 14th June, 2024 Mr. Vikash Kumar Banka, Chartered Accountant represented the petitioner before the proper officer and sought for cross examination of not only Sri Shyam Sundar Tiwari, T. Venkat Rao and the vehicle owners Ashoke Kumar Saha and Kalpana Jaiswal but also the Chartered Accountant, and that of any other person who had given statement in the case. On the request of the petitioner's representative, a cross examination was offered and the petitioner/his representative duly cross examined Sri Shyam Sundar Tiwari and Ashoke Kumar Saha. Incidentally, when Sri Shyam Sundar Tiwari was re-examined, the petitioner's representative refused to be present and left the examination room without signing the note sheet on 5th July, 2024, on the ground that the directives of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court did not permit re-examination. 7. In this context, it may be noted that the petitioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oss examine all the transporters. At least, transporters and the persons who had made statements which were relied on by the respondents in the show-cause ought to have been produced for cross-examination by the petitioner. Having regard thereto, he submits that the order should be set aside and the matter should be remanded back to the proper officer for re-adjudication. 10. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the State, has also taken me through the details of the proceedings and submits that admittedly, in this case, the petitioner was afforded with an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner was supplied with all particulars and documents including the statements. Still later, the petitioner was afforded with an opportunity to cross examine. Incidentally, according to him once, the petitioner refused to participate in the process of re-examination, the petitioner lost all further right to cross examine any further or other persons. In any event, it is submitted that the proper officer had duly considered the contentions raised by the petitioner and has dealt with the matter in detail. It is only thereafter, an adjudication order was passed. Despite the fact that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not complain of not being afforded opportunity to cross-examine other witnesses. In my view, the order passed by the proper officer takes into consideration the entirety of the stand taken by the petitioner and deals with the response given by the petitioner in detail. From a perusal of the same, it cannot be said that the order is perverse. Regarding re-evaluation of the evidence on record, I am afraid that this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction is not required to look into the same. The petitioner chose not to approach the appellate authority, instead he had approached this Court by giving a go-by to the appellate provision. Although, the petitioner strongly argued that it was the obligation of the proper officer to ascertain the toll plaza reports before holding the petitioner guilty of having availed ITC on the basis of fake transactions, I may note that it was the initial obligation of the petitioner to place such documents. 14. In my view, ordinarily the obligation to prove a fact remains with the person who alleges the same. Since, the petitioner in this case seeks to claim that the vehicles which were employed by the petitioner, had transported the goods, it was....