TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1295
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of goods such as PVC Resin SP. On the basis of the said intelligence, searches were carried out at various premises including one of M/s Saraswati Printers dated 21st December, 2020. The statements of Mr. Vikas Narang and Mr. Randhir Kumar Jha of M/s Saraswati Printers were recorded which revealed further that the Petitioner was one of the persons from whom invoices were received and who was paid commission for raising of the invoices. 4. The Petitioner's statement was recorded on 6th January, 2021 when the search was conducted when his statement is stated to have been recorded in the following terms: "14. M/s Banson Enterprise, Khasra No 154/345, Ground Extended Lal Dora, VPO-Pooth Khurd Delhi-110039 was searched on 06.01.2021. During the search, Panchanama dated 06.01.2021 was drawn at the premises. [RUD 12] 15. Statement of Shri Navneet Bansal, Partner of M/s Banson Enterprise was recorded on 06.01.2021 (RUD-12A) wherein he inter-alia stated that:- a) On being asked to explain the details of purchases made by them and supplies made to M/s Saraswati Printers at B-134, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-l New Delhi and their Old address B-71, Okhla Industr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oth Khurd, Delhi-110039, under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017." 7. The challenge in this case is that the RUDs have not been supplied. The other submission made by Mr. Vacher, ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that in the case of M/s Devansh Chemical P. Ltd., notice has already been issued in a petition filed by the said entity i.e., W.P. (C) 1274/2025 and he relies upon the submissions made by M/s Devansh Chemical P. Ltd. which is recorded in the impugned order. 8. This Court has considered the matter. In the case of the Petitioner, no reply was filed before the Adjudicating Authority. The Petitioner was fully aware of the SCN which was issued to him. Not even an iota of attempt was made by the Petitioner to rebut or explain the allegations against the Petitioner. The reliance on paragraph 3.3 of the impugned order where the submission of M/s Devansh Chemical P. Ltd. is recorded would not assist the Petitioner as it appears that the said firm may have appeared before the Adjudicating Authority. In any event, the impugned order clearly records that after issuance of notice to various noticees, many of them filed rep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 of the above exceptions was established. There was, in fact, no violation of the principles of 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 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 pertai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 petitions that this facility under Section 16 of the CGST 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 fa....