AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1453
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cause notice dated 24th May, 2022 (hereinafter, 'SCN') through e-mail, and thereafter, the Petitioner approached the GST Department for filing a reply to the said SCN. However, he was asked to upload the said reply on the GST portal, despite the fact that the SCN itself was not uploaded on the GST portal. 4. The impugned order has thus been passed without a reply to the SCN on behalf of the Petitioner, and without any personal hearing. 5. On the last date of hearing i.e., 28th July, 2025, the Court had directed the GST Department to place on record the facts relating to uploading of SCN, and whether any opportunity for personal hearing was granted to the Petitioner or not. 6. Ld. SSC for the GST Department has placed certain documents on record, which reveals the following:- (i) That the SCN dated 24th May, 2022 along with Relied Upon Documents (hereinafter 'RUDs') was served upon the Petitioner at the registered email ID i.e., [email protected], on 25th May, 2022 at 23:54, and again on 26th May, 2022 at 7:46 AM. (ii) That personal hearing notices were served to all the noticees, including the Petitioner. The same were stated to have been dispatc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....but he did not turn up. For further investigation, GSTR 2A of M/s DK Enterprises was abstracted from the GSTIN and the major suppliers shown, consolidated as under. The above chart shows that apart from input tax credit availed from M/s ITC Ltd., M/s DK Enterprises has also shown 8 other "suppliers", on whose invoices input tax credit of total Rs.22.80 Cr. has been availed. The first of these is M/s AS Traders (Prop. shown as Ankit Singh), which was found to be a take and non-existent firm (para 5.2 above). They also availed input tax credit on invoices issued by M/s SM Enterprises (Prop, shown as Seema), which was also found to be a fake entity (para 4.4 above). Similarly, M/s Archana Enterprises (Prop. shown as Raju was also found fake in another investigation, in which show cause notice [F.No. DGGI/GZU/Gr.G/Inv/81/2018-19/376-435 dated 21.05.2020] was issued to them as well as M/s DK Enterprises for availing fake input tax credit of 3,05,07,684 - from July 2017 to Nov. 2018 from this non existent entity. They also similarly availed input tax credit from M/s Om Traders (Prop. shown as Rachna Jain) and another M/s AS Traders registered on the same PAN as fake other with t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to M/s ITC Ltd. on their Sify software. Thus what was actually cleared into the market on the counter/ hawker sales, where the element of input tax credit is redundant and not utilized, appears to have been made "use of" by creating this paper trail so as to facilitate the movement of fake input tax credit through these fake/ dummy entities to their ultimate encashment by exporter firms. The illicit input tax credit of Rs.62.24 crores passed onto five fake firms/ dummy company (para 41), found its way to said five exporters, who encashed it by getting refunds on GST discharged via utilizing this non-existent input tax credit. 8.3 In addition, M/s DK. Enterprises showed supplies to two exporters, as follows :- # Name of Exporter shown : M/s Functional period Input tax credit passed Para no. 1 SR Impex, Rewari 05/2018 - 07/2019 20,55,06,393 3.1 2 RK Enterprises, Faridabad 11/2018 - 07/2019 07,08,52,464 3.3 In some of the cases, transport details were found mentioned on the invoices issued. As such, verification was caused and only few transporters were found. M/s JBM Roadlines was found to be fake and non-existent (para ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y month and they had provided to M/s ITC Ltd. the same. That he had submitted consolidated bank statement chart showing debit and credit entries for major parties of M/s D.K. Enterprises. He stated that he dealt with Sh. Gopal Sharma, Prop. M/s G.S. Nut, in respect of transactions with M/s G.S. Nuts, M/s Gopal Associates and M/s S.M. Enterprises and he or his employee did not know any other person except Sh. Gopal Sharma in all those firms. That he or his employees had never visited the GST registered premises of those firms. That for transaction with respect to M/s A.R. Enterprises, M/s A R Traders, M/s A S Traders, M/s Archana Enterprises, M/s Archana Traders, M/s Ashok Agencies, M/s Capital India, M/s GR Nuts Pvt. Ltd., M/s HK Sales, M/s Himani Sales, M/s India Overseas, M/s Jai Guru Traders, M/s Jai International, M/s Joles Trado Pvt. Ltd., M/s Laxmi Trading Co., M/s Om Traders, M/s SM Enterprises, M/s SR Impex, M/s SR International, M/s Sangam Sales, M/s Sharda Enterprises, M/s Sharp International, M/s Super Sales, Ms/ United India, M/s Kapoor Trading Co., and M/s V K Traders, he had dealt with Sh. Ritesh Aggarwal and thereafter only Sh. Ritesh Aggarwal had dealt in respect of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... entities of Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal, Mr. Gopal Sharma or Rajesh Kasera. He denied having any transport documents/register/slips for all these transactions shown with these entities. He stated that for all these entities of Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal/ Rajesh Kasera, he had prepared Part-B of e-way bill for all transaction in Delhi and vehicle numbers were noted on loading. He was confronted with the transporter statements denying any such transport. Thus, he was shown the statement of Sh. Amit Taluja dated 21.09.2020 (para7.3.1) who denied any transport of goods from M/s DK Enterprises to M/s- SR Impex and stated their vehicle numbers were planted in e-way bills. He was also shown the statement of Sh. Mukesh dated 25.09.2020 (para 7.3.2) denying transport from M/s DK Enterprises to the fake firms / dummy company, M/s Joles Trado Pvt. Ltd., M/s Om Traders, M/s Capital India, M/s AS Traders and M/s AR Traders and maintained their vehicles were mis represented in the e-way bills. However, Sh. Deepak Mittal could not reply to these transporter statements. He was also shown the statement dated 27.09.2019 of Sh. Sanjeev Goel, Director of M/s Alpha Sea and Air Pvt. Ltd. (para 7.1.2), wherein he deni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....my/fake entities. 17. There can be no doubt that the principles of natural justice ought to be complied with in adjudication of proceedings. In this case, however, the Court notes that the proprietor i.e., Mr. Deepak Mittal has been all along aware of the entire investigation, which was going on, as also various proceedings that had been commenced against him, and related entities. SCNs were served upon the Petitioner. He had appeared in the investigation and statements have also been recorded. Thus, there was no reason why the physical copy of the reply to the SCN was not filed, and no follow up was done with the GST Department, in order to ensure that hearings are duly attended. Admittedly, the SCN was sent by email to the Petitioner and he had complete knowledge of the proceedings. Hence, it cannot be said that there is violation of the principles of the natural justice. 18. Moreover, in the batch of petitions involving SR Impex, the Court has already relegated the parties to avail of the appellate remedy in accordance with law. The details of the said petitions are as under: 1. W.P.(C) 6441/2025 M/s Sheetal and Sons v. Union of India and Anr. 2. W.P.(C) 644....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....taking recourse to appropriate remedies which 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" 20. 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 writ petition under Article 226. In the said decision, the Supreme Court reiterated the position that existence of an alternative remedy is not absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition, however, a writ petition under Article 226 can only be filed under exceptional circumstances.... xxx xxx....