TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1691
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... From To 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 0 0.00 JUL 2017 MAR 2018 CGST NA 14,95,449. 00 25,99,868.00 14,95,449 00 0.00 0.00 55,90,766.00 2 0 0.00 JUL 2017 MAR 2018 SGST NA 14,95,449.8 25,99,868.00 14,95,449 00 0.00 0.00 55,90,766.00 Total 29,90,898.00 51,99,736.00 29,90,898.00 0.00 0.00 1,11,81,532.00 3. The present case arises out of the investigation, which was conducted by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (hereinafter "DGGI"), against various bogus and fake suppliers. One such supplier was M/s Balaji Sales Corporation (hereinafter "M/s. Balaji"), which had its principal place of business at Nangloi, West Delhi. During the course of investigation, the concerned proprietor of M/s. Balaji was issued summons at its registered place of business, and inspection was sought to be conducted on the residential premises of the said proprietor. However, both the said addresses were found to be untraceable. Accordingly, it was realised that the said firm was not operati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gible Input Tax Credit amounting to Rs. 29,90,898/- (CGST: Rs. 14,95,449/-, SGST: Rs. 14,95,449/-) (Rs. Twenty Nine Lakhs Ninety Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety Eight only), from the noticee, under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with under Section 74 of the SGST Act, 2017, along-with interest at applicable rates under the provisions of section 50 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with section 50 of the SGST Act, 2017; (ii) I drop to appropriate the amount freezes vide order No.06/2-023-24 dated 03.08.2023, which is lying in bank account of M/s Treco Wire (India) Pvt. Ltd., if any, against the confirmed demand of GST totalling Rs. 29,90,898/- (CGST: Rs. 14,95,449/-, SGST: Rs. 14,95,449/-); (iii) I hereby order to recover and appropriate the available balance of ITC Rs. 14,95,449/- (SGST) (Rs. fourteen lakhs ninety five thousand four hundred forty nine only) from the Electronic Credit Ledger of the noticee against the confirmed demand of GST totalling Rs. 29,90,898/- (CGST: Rs. 14,95,449/-, SGST: Rs. 14,95,449/-), subject to successful transfer of the same to Government; (iv) I, hereby impose penalty of Rs. 29,90,898/- (CGST: Rs. 14,95,449/-, SGST: Rs. 14....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner claims ignorance about the cancellation of GST registration of M/s Balaji. Analysis and Findings 12. The Court has heard the parties and considered the matter. Firstly, the impugned order is dated 27th January, 2025 and in terms of Sections 107 of the CGST Act, the limitation for challenging the same by way of an appeal is three months, which may be extended by one month. Clearly, the limitation period for filing the appeal has already lapsed in the present case. The stand of the Petitioner is that the writ petition was filed in April, 2025 itself and has now listed in September today for the first time. There is no explanation given for such a delay in listing, inasmuch as in the Delhi High Court usually matters are listed, if objections are cleared, between 24 to 48 hours. The Petitioner has deliberately held back the listing of this writ petition for reasons unknown. It is also pertinent to note that as per the case history of the present petition the same has been filed on 8th September, 2025. Thus, within the prescribed period, no appeal has been filed against the impugned order, whereby, the findings in impugned order dated 27th January, 2025 have thus, become fin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....documents and the reply, can be taken as proof of filing but not incontrovertible proof of having attended the hearings. 16. Be that as it may, broadly, it cannot be stated that there has been any violation of the principles of natural justice as the documents and reply have been considered by the Adjudicating Authority. Moreover, even if this Court takes the reply into consideration, there is no details given therein as to who is the contact person of M/s Balaji or any other evidence given to show that the said M/s Balaji did actually exist as a firm. In the absence of such averments, in the opinion of the Court, the crux of the SCN remains unanswered. 17. Further, the submission in respect of the electronic cash ledger is also that it was blocked and unblocked repeatedly. Even in August, 2025 there is a debit, which has been created for a sum of Rs.14,97,207/-. No fault can be found in the debiting of electronic cash ledger by the GST Department as the order dated 27th January, 2025 has, in fact, attained finality since no appeal has been filed and, in fact, as of August, 2025 no writ petition was also listed in this Court in respect of the impugned order. 18. Under thes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s held that the statutory timeline for filing an appeal under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act is three months from the date the decision or order is communicated to the appellant. However, Section 107(4) provides a limited extension of one additional month, at the discretion of the appellate authority, if sufficient cause is demonstrated. The Court observed that the Legislature, while allowing an extension in specific instances, did not intend for the Limitation Act to apply to proceedings under the CGST Act. If such an intention existed, there would have been no need to confer special powers on the High Court to entertain appeals beyond the prescribed period, subject to sufficient cause being shown. This distinction is crucial because, unlike other legislations where Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies automatically via Section 29(2), the CGST Act prescribes a rigid timeframe. Further, the absence of the phrase "but not thereafter" in Section 107(4) does not dilute its mandatory nature. 67. Likewise, the Allahabad High Court in Yadav Steels v. Commissioner dealt with a matter wherein the appeal was filed 66 days after the expiry of the additional one-month period, maki....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion can be resorted provided the legislation does not construct an independent regime with respect to an appeal being preferred. Once it is found that the legislation incorporates a provision which creates a special period of limitation and proscribes the same being entertained after a terminal date, the general provisions of the Limitation Act would cease to apply." As is clear from the above discussion, such a situation does not exist in the present case. 19. Further, in cases of availment of fraudulent ITC, this Court has repeatedly held that exercise of writ jurisdiction ought not to be the usual course, unless some exceptional circumstances exist. Further, the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5121/2021 titled 'The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. v. M/s Commercial Steel Limited' passed on 3rd September, 2021 has held as under: "11. The respondent had a statutory remedy under section 107. Instead of availing of the remedy, the respondent instituted a petition under Article 226. The existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. But a writ petition can be entertain....