TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 858
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Departments. 4. Secondly, it is submitted that the personal hearing was also attended by the Petitioner, but the same does not find a mention in the impugned orders. In addition, the plea of limitation has also been raised by the Petitioner. 5. Coming to the plea of limitation, it is seen that both the impugned orders are dated 1st February, 2025, however, but it appears that the DRC-07 was uploaded on 9th February, 2025 on the GST Portal of the Petitioner. 6. Mr. Harpreet Singh, ld. Sr. Standing Counsel submits that the impugned orders were issued by the GST Department within the prescribed limitation period, however, due to a technical glitch, they may have been uploaded on the GST Portal on a later date. 7. Be that as it may, insofar as the reply dated 30th August, 2024, which has been filed by the Petitioner to the two Show Cause Notices dated 5th August, 2024 is concerned, the impugned order dated 9th February, 2025 itself records as under: "4. SUBMISSIONS OF THE NOTICEES AND RECORDS OF PERSONAL HEARING: Following the principle of natural justice, the noticees were granted personal hearings (PH) on 21.11.2024, 16.12.2024 & 26.12.2024. However, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....audit observations and data available on portal, hence found not tenable. Whereas, for rest of the noticees neither the noticees nor any of their authorized representatives appeared before the Adjudicating Authority for personal hearing on the said dates. Hence, I am of the considered view that in the present case, Principle of Natural Justice as well as Principle of Adjudication has been duly followed and opportunities have been provided to the Noticees to put forth their defence in personal hearing. I find that the noticees had failed to avail the opportunity of personal hearing and therefore forfeit their claim in future related to violation of natural justice. I find it relevant to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble CESTAT in the case of V.K. Thampt Vs. Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Cochin [1988 (033) ELT 0424], wherein Hon'ble Tribunal inter alia held at para 7 that "an adjudicating authority is entitled to proceed ex-parte if the person concerned does not appear before it in response to a notice issued by it." Thus, I have no option but to adjudicate the present case ex-parte on the basis of records available in this case." 8. From the paragraphs extracted hereina....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to avail of its appellate remedy, rather than entertaining a writ petition. 13. Insofar as the non-consideration of the reply filed by Petitioner is concerned, the Petitioner is free to file an appeal raising the said contentions, along with any other documents it relies upon in support of its appeal. 14. The third contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner is that as per the Circular No. 31/05/2018-GST, only one single order ought to be passed in the same financial year where similar notices have been issued. The said circular reads as under: "8. In case show cause notices have been issued on similar issues to a noticee(s) and made answerable to different levels of adjudicating authorities within a Commissionerate, such show cause notices should be adjudicated by the adjudicating authority competent to decide the case involving the highest amount of central tax and/or integrated tax (including cess)." 15. A perusal of the first SCN dated 5th August, 2024 reveals wrongful availment of ITC and its utilization by 176 noticees during FY 2017-18 on the basis of the goods less invoices issued by non existent firms as under: b. Grounds: That the non-existen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner chooses not to even participate in the proceedings in any manner whatsoever. The matter relates to alleged fraudulent availment of ITC in respect of which the demand has been raised. The only argument being made on behalf of the Petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed belatedly. 12. A perusal of the impugned order would itself show that the same was signed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST (North) on 1st February, 2025 and has been dated 1st February, 2025. The DRC-07 may have been uploaded on 9th February, 2025. However, it cannot be held that the impugned order was passed outside the period of limitation. 13. Under these circumstances, the Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. 14. Accordingly, the present writ petition, along with all pending applications is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Bar Association within two weeks ... " 19. In all these matters in case of availment of fraudulent ITC, there are several factual issues, which would need to be looked into, which cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition. This view has already been taken by this Court in s....