TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 247
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....%) Turnover Place of supply Act Tax/Cess Interest Penalty Fee Others Total 1. 0 0.00 Delhi CGST 383.330.50 0.00 383,330 50 0.00 0.00 766,661.00 2. 0 0.00 Delhi SGST 383.330.50 0.00 383,330. 50 0.00 0.00 766.661.00 4. A brief background of the present case is that, there were notices issued to 670 parties. In the said notices, during the investigation pursuant thereto, it was revealed that there were various firms in Sita Ram Bazar and Naya Bazar, which were used to generate fake invoices. A total of 55 non-existing bogus supplier firms were found and more than 553 crore as inadmissible ITC was passed on to 5,962 recipients/beneficiary firms. 5. The Petitioner appears at serial No.209 in the said list of 670 parties. After the investigation was concluded, the demand was raised against the Petitioner. 6. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the Petitioner on 3rd August, 2024 (hereinafter, 'SCN'), by the Respondent Department, to which the Petitioner filed a reply on 14th October, 2025. 7. The submission of ld. Counsel for Petitioner is that the aforesaid reply which was filed by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... charge of the conveyance. In this backdrop, it was not appropriate for the High Court to entertain a writ petition. The assessment of facts would have to be 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 state in the present case" 11. Thereafter, this Court in W.P.(C) 5737/2025 titled Mukesh Kumar Garg v. Union of India & Ors. dealing with a similar case involving fraudulent availment of ITC had held as under: "11. The Court has considered the matter under Article 226 of the Const....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the unscrupulous litigants. 17. Moreover, when such transactions are entered into, a factual analysis would be required to be undertaken and the same cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. The Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, cannot adjudicate upon or ascertain the factual aspects pertaining to what was the role played by the Petitioner, whether the penalty imposed is justified or not, whether the same requires to be reduced proportionately in terms of the invoices raised by the Petitioner under his firm or whether penalty is liable to be imposed under Section 122(1) and Section 122(3) of the CGST Act. 18. The persons, who are involved in such transactions, cannot be allowed to try different remedies before different forums, inasmuch as the same would also result in multiplicity of litigation and could also lead to contradictory findings of different Forums, Tribunals and Courts." 12. This position was also followed in M/s Sheetal and Sons & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., 2025: DHC: 4057-DB. The relevant portion of the said decision read as under: 15. The Supreme Court in the decision in Civil Appeal No 5121 of 2021 titled 'The Assistant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 penalties have been imposed on a large number of firms and individuals, who were connected in the entire maze and not just the Petitioner. 15. The impugned order is an appealable order under Section 107 of the CGST Act. One of the co-noticees, who is also the son of the Petitioner i.e. Mr. Anuj Garg, has already appealed before the Appellate Authority. 16. Insofar as exercise of writ jurisdiction itself is concerned, it is the settled position that this jur....