Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2025 (12) TMI 1789

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se Notices: Writ Petition Show Cause Notice Order-in-Original W.P. (C) 7741/2025 2nd August, 2024 17th January, 2025 W.P. (C) 7743/2025 3rd August, 2024 22nd January, 2025 W.P. (C) 7746/2025 3rd August, 2024 22nd January, 2025 W.P. (C) 7747/2025 3rd August, 2024 22nd January, 2025 In W.P. (C) 7741/2025 3. The impugned order and Show Cause Notice (hereinafter, 'SCN') relate to intelligence which was gathered by the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (hereinafter, 'DGGI'), in respect of Input Tax Credit (hereinafter, 'ITC') availed through bogus transactions and fake invoicing without actual supply of goods. 4. The only submission urged by Mr Ramakant Gaur, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is that the reply has not been considered and no personal hearing was granted. 5. The Court has perused paragraph 9.1 and 9.2 of the impugned order, which is set out below: "9. 1. The Noticee did not submit any explanation in writing to the said SCN even though vide the said SCN, it was specifically asked to explain within 30 days of the SCN. Further, it is also noted that the none of the Noticee sought any adjo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hem avail fraudulent ITC on such invoices. 12. Mr. Ramakant Gaur, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that no reply was filed to the SCNs in these petitions, however, the personal hearing notices were received by the Petitioner. Moreover, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that there is no specific allegation against the Petitioner and the SCNs are summary in nature. Analysis and Findings 13. The question in all these 4 cases is that there needs to be a factual consideration of various entities, their promoters, directors, addresses and the manner in which they are connected to each other. This is beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction. 14. Moreover, the maze of transactions also is such that the same cannot be gone into in a writ petition. The investigation which was conducted would show that the premises were also searched. Thus, the Petitioner was fully aware of the proceedings going on against him, but took no steps whatsoever to file a reply or even attend the personal hearing. 15. There is no reason to disbelieve the personal hearing notices which were issued to the Petitioner. At this stage, Mr. Ramakant Gaur submits that these were not available on the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....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" 18. 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 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/supp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....alty 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." 19. 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 Commissioner of State Tax &Ors. v. M/s Commercial Steel Limited' discussed the maintainability of a writ petition under Article226. In the said decision, the Supreme Court reiterated the position that existence of an alternative remedy is not absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition, however, a writ petition under Article 226 can only be filed under exceptional circumstances.... XXXX 16. In view of the fact that the impugned order is an appealable order and the principles laid down in the abovementioned decisi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s 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 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 rai....