TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 439
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act Tax/Cess Interest Penalty Fee Others Total 1. 0 0.00 Delhi CGST 1723.70 9.50 0.00 1723.70 9.50 0.00 0.00 3447.41 9.00 2. 0 0.00 Delhi SGST 1723.70 9.50 0.00 1723.70 9.50 0.00 0.00 3447.41 9.00 4. In challenge to the same impugned order dated 21st January, 2025, this Court has already relegated a similarly placed noticee to avail of the appellate remedy in 'W.P.(C) 16455/2025 Toshniwal Electricals Pvt Ltd vs The Principal Commissioner of Central Tax Delhi North & Ors.' vide order dated 30th October, 2025, where the Court has held as under: "13. Under these circumstances, the Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. The Petitioner was well aware of several notices, which were issued and the reply was duly filed by the Petitioner. Even in reply, the only ground taken is that the RUDs have not been supplied and there is no stand taken by the Petitioner on merits. 14. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to relegate the Petitioner to avail of appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The appeal may be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the exchequer as also the nature of impact on the GST regime, and balance the same against the interest of the Petitioners, which is secured by availing the right to statutory appeal. 10. It would be apposite to refer to some of the cases which have been decided by the Supreme Court as also by this Court on these aspects. The Supreme Court in the context of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, 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', 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 entertained in exceptional circumstances where there is: (i) a breach of fundamental rights; (ii) a violation of the principles of natural justice; (iii) an excess of jurisdiction; or (iv) a challenge to the vires of the statute or delegated legislation. 12. In the present case, none ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....GST Act has been misused by various individuals, firms, entities and companies to avail 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 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. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egime, writ jurisdiction ought not to be exercised in such cases. The relevant portions of the said judgment are set out below: "11. The Court has considered the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is an exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The allegations against the Petitioner in the impugned order are extremely serious in nature. They reveal the complex maze of transactions, which are alleged to have been carried out between various non- existent firms for the sake of enabling fraudulent availment of the ITC. 12. The entire concept of Input Tax Credit, as recognized under Section 16 of the CGST Act is for enabling businesses to get input tax on the goods and services which are manufactured/supplied by them in the chain of business transactions. The same is meant as an incentive for businesses who need not pay taxes on the inputs, which have already been taxed at the source itself. The said facility, which was introduced under Section 16 of the CGST Act is a major feature of the GST regime, which is business friendly and is meant to enable ease of doing business. 13. It is observed by this Court in a large number of writ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion. However, the Petitioners are granted the liberty to file an appeal. 18. Accordingly, the Petitioners are permitted to avail of the appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, by 15th July, 2025, along with the necessary pre-deposit mandated, in which case the appeal shall be adjudicated on merits and shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation. 19. Needless to add, any observations made by this Court would not have any impact on the final adjudication by the appellate authority." 14. The decision in Metal Techs (supra) has also been carried to the Supreme Court in SLP(C) 27411/2025 titled M/S Metal Techs v. Central Goods and Services Tax Delhi South. In the said SLP, the Supreme Court, vide order dated 22nd September, 2025 has merely extended the time for filing the appeal. 15. In matters of this nature, where there are a large number of noticees who are connected to each other, the SCN has been properly uploaded on the portal and no satisfactory reply is filed by the Petitioner, the Court shall not interfere. Even according to Mr. S.B. Sharma, ld. Counsel, the Petitioner had written a letter to the Department seeking certain documents. ....