TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 867
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 0.00 Delhi CGST 1,241,58 1.00 0.00 1,241,58 1.00 0.00 0.00 2,483,16 2.00 2. 0 0.00 Delhi SGST 1,241,58 1.00 0.00 1,241,58 1.00 0.00 0.00 2.483,16 2.00 4. The case of the Petitioner is that no personal hearing notice was served upon the Petitioner during the course of adjudication proceedings prior to passing of the impugned order and there was also a delay in uploading of the Show Cause Notice dated 23rd July, 2024 (hereinafter 'SCN') itself, since the same is stated to have been uploaded on 27th August, 2024 when the limitation period ended on 5th August, 2024. 5. Mr. Tyagi, ld. Senior Standing Counsel submits that the impugned order is an appealable order and it involves allegations of availment of fake Input Tax Credit (hereinafter 'ITC') by the Petitioner. 6. The Court has considered the matter. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the DGGI, Rohtak had commenced investigation against one Mr. Praveen Jain based in Sonepat, who is stated to have created various firms in Delhi with an intention to only obtain ITC. Various documents, etc. were seized during a search, including the electronic devices o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....natural justice since a notice was served on the person in 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 Cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat this jurisdiction ought not be exercised by the Court to support 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 i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iduals, 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. 16. Insofar as exercise of writ jurisdi....