2025 (10) TMI 592

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f. W.P.(C) 13979/2025 & CMAPPL. 57251/2025 3. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging three Orders-in-Original, which relates to demands arising out of Input Tax Credit (hereinafter, 'ITC') that has been availed by the Petitioner. 4. The details of the three Orders-in Original are as under: (i) Order-in-Original dated 29th January 2025 passed by the Principal Commissioner of CGST, Delhi North (hereinafter OIO-1) (ii) Order-in-Original dated 1st February 2025 passed by the Superintendent (Adjudication) CGST Delhi North (hereinafter OIO-2) (iii) Order-in-Original dated 4th February 2025 passed by the Superintendent (Adjudi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ne M/s Reema Polychem Pvt. Ltd. Prior to issuance of SCN-1, an alert was received in respect of an investigation against M/s Choudhary Metals and M/s Kavita Metals operated by proprietor i.e., Mr. Laxman Chaudhary. During the investigation, it was revealed that these two entities had availed of ITC using invoices from non-existent firms in Delhi. Thereafter, the proprietor of these two entities was, in fact, arrested. There were a total of 23 non-existing/ fake firms and invoices were issued without actual supply of goods. An investigation into the 23 non-existing/ fake firms was conducted, and it was found that these firms had 408 recipients of ITC. The Petitioner appears at Serial No. 185 of Table-A of OIO-1. A demand has, therefore, been....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ting only to the Petitioner qua the same financial year. These are independent orders which have been passed after a detailed investigation. 11. In cases involving 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 various decisions. 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 petition unde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rsue the grievance in regard to the action which has been adopted by the state in the present case" 12. 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' dis....