TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 718
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enging the show cause notice dated 11th July, 2024 (hereinafter, 'the SCN') issued by the Respondent Department, as also the consequent order dated 3rd February, 2025 (hereinafter, 'the impugned order'). 3. The SCN was issued to the Petitioner on 11th July, 2024, proposing to raise certain demands in respect of fraudulent availment of input tax credit (ITC) through one M/s Sun Corporation. The allegation in the SCN was that through the said M/s Sun Corporation, the Petitioner has availed of fraudulent ITC. 4. The Petitioner had filed a reply to the SCN on 16th December, 2024 (hereinafter, 'the reply to SCN') and had stated that it had received goods from its supplier through proper invoices and e-way bills. However, this position is d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 55 07AKVPK5792LIZ5 M/s Rajesh Metal 3,85,291 19.09.2022 In response of the summon, a reply was received from M/s Rajesh Metals. In their reply they stated that they have purchased the copper scrap from M/s Sun International and claimed the input tax credit and they have all the proofs in this regard. They also submitted copies of invoices and bank statement. 9. The Court notes that the reply to the SCN filed by the Petitioner seems to be lengthy and detailed in nature and the same has not been fully dealt with in the impugned order. 10. The matter relates to allegations of fraudulent availment of ITC. This Court has, in the past, made clear its opinion in several judgments, that writ jurisdiction ought not to be ordin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l of ITC even when the output tax is not deposited or when the entities or individuals who had to deposit the output tax are themselves found to be not existent. Such misuse, if permitted to continue, would create an enormous dent in the GST regime itself. 14. As is seen in the present case, the Petitioner and his other family members are alleged to have incorporated or floated various firms and businesses only for the purposes of availing ITC without there being any supply of goods or services. The impugned order in question dated 30th January, 2025, which is under challenge, is a detailed order which consists of various facts as per the Department, which resulted in the imposition of demands and penalties. The demands and penalti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....supra) was challenged before the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 018178 /2025 titled Mukesh Kumar Garg v. Union of India. The following order was passed by the Supreme Court in the said case on 4th August, 2025: "1. Two primary contentions have been raised. First, Section 122(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'the Act') would not be applicable to the petitioner as he is a non-taxable person. Secondly, the provisions of Section 122 (1A) of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 01.01.2021 cannot be applied retrospectively for the Assessment Years 2017-2020. 2. Leave granted. 3. In the meanwhile, there shall be stay on the recovery of the amount directed to be deposited provided the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....carried out by the appellate authority. As a matter of fact, the High Court has while doing this exercise proceeded on the basis of surmises. However, since we are inclined to relegate the respondent to the pursuit of the alternate statutory remedy under Section 107, this Court makes no observation on the merits of the case of the respondent. 13. For the above reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court. The writ petition filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed. However, this shall not preclude the respondent from 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 s....