TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 925
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing the Show Cause Notice dated 5th August, 2024 (hereinafter, 'SCN') issued for the Financial Year 2017-18. The Petitioner further challenges the Order-in-Original dated 1st February, 2025 along with the Form DRC-07 dated 9th February, 2025 (hereinafter, 'impugned order'). Vide the impugned order a demand to the tune of Rs. 2,18,24,370/- has been raised against the Petitioner. 4. On behalf of the Petitioner, two submissions have been made by the ld. Counsel. Firstly, the reply dated 27th August, 2024, which has been filed by the Petitioner to the SCN, which led to the passing of the impugned order has not been cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....SSION & FINDINGS:- 5.1 I have carefully gone through the facts of the case, available case records and the allegations as per the subject SCN. It is seen that the Noticees had not submitted any written submission and also did not appear for personal hearing. Personal Hearings were granted on 21.11.2024, 16.12.2024 & 26.12.2024. However, replies from Noticee No. 14, 70 and 86 were received which have been duly considered. As per reply of Noticee No. 70 & 86 the amount mentioned below has been deposited: Noticee No. Name of the taxpayer Tax (in Rs.) Interest (in Rs.) Penalty (in Rs.) DRC-03 ARN no. 70 CREATIVE INDUSTRIES 2,94,658/ - 1,59,114/ - 44,198/ - AD070221011382 T 86 AAR BEE ENGINEERING WORKS 1,31,406/ - 70,960/-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 conce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Delhi CGST 7.274.790.00 0.00 14,549.580.00 0.00 0.00 21,824.370.00 2. 0 0.00 Delhi SGST 7.274.790.00 0.00 14,549.580.00 0.00 0.00 21,824.370.00 12. A perusal of the SCN dated 5th August, 2024 reveals wrongful availment of ITC and its utilization by 106 noticees during FY 2017-18 on the basis of the goods-less invoices issued by non existent firms as under: 13. Moreover, the allegation in the said SCN is that two individuals namely Mr. Rajesh Jindal and Mr. Adesh Jain had created, controlled and managed a large number of fake firms, which were opened in the names of different individuals and were not genuine businesses or business persons. 14. Insofar as the SCN and the consequent impugned demand order dated 9th February....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng 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..." 15. 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 several matters. Further, the Supreme Court in the context of CGST Act, has, in Civil Appeal No. 5121/2021 dated 3rd September, 2021 titled 'The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. v. M/s Commercial Steel Limited', held as under: "11. The respondent had a statutory remedy under section 107. Instead of availing of the remedy, the respondent instituted a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egard to the action which has been adopted by the state in the present case" 16. The said legal position has also been reiterated by this Court in M/s Sheetal and Sons & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., (2025: DHC: 4057-DB) and by the Allahabad High Court in Writ Tax No. 753 of 2023 titled 'Elesh Aggarwal v. Union of India' wherein the Allahabad High Court has held that no ground is made for interference on merits in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction. The relevant portion of the decision in M/s Sheetal and Sons & Ors. (Supra) reads as under: "15. The Supreme Court in the decision in Civil Appeal No 5121 of 2021 titled 'The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. v. M/s Commercial Steel Limited' discussed the maintainability of a ....