2026 (4) TMI 941

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....x Act, 2017 ["CGST Act"] dated 28.06.2025, the corrigendum thereto dated 22.12.2025 and the order in original dated 29.12.2025, whereby a demand of Rs.42,66,108/- was confirmed. Brief facts 2. The present proceedings find their genesis in an Alert Notice dated 09.06.2025 received from the Additional Commissioner (AE), CGST Delhi South Commissionerate regarding fraudulent availment and passing on ITC by a non-existent firm viz. M/S Advanta Sales. The investigation pursuant to the said Alert Notice led to the issuance of the show cause notice dated 28.06.2025 to the petitioner. 3. The show cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 pertained to allegations of wrongful utilization of excess ITC from a non-existent firm viz. M....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt at the principal place of business, and pushed goods-less invoices to pass off fraudulently availed ITC. Submissions of the petitioner 7. Mr. Chinmaya Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner, has assailed the impugned order by challenging, inter-alia the corrigendum dated 22.12.2025 which allegedly enlarged the scope of the show cause notice dated 28.06.2025 beyond permissible limits. Mr. Seth contends that the respondent no. 1, in an underhanded manner, has traversed beyond the legally permissible limits of rectification in a corrigendum, and has sought to initiate fresh proceedings, under the guise of the corrigendum, for the financial year of 2019-2020. That being so, Mr. Seth, contends that the scope of rectification under Sec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... years 2019-2020 within the fold of the show cause notice dated 28.06.2025 is hopelessly time barred as the same expired on 30.09.2025. 12. Once no valid and legal show cause notice had been served to the petitioner for financial year 2019-2020, the proper officer becomes functus officio and is thus divested of any jurisdiction to belatedly issue the same. In view thereof, respondent no. 1 cannot belatedly add another financial year, after the expiry of limitation on 30.09.2025 to circumvent the limitation, and resurrect a dead cause of action. 13. Lastly, it has also been contended that the impugned corrigendum seeks to amend the show cause notice, but does not amend the DRC-01, thereby vitiating the entire proceedings. DRC-01 forms ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....min has contended that the inclusion of financial year 2019-2020 does not traverse the legally permissible limits of rectification under Section 161 CGST Act, 2017, as the corrigendum does not include any new transactions or fresh tax liability, and that the intent in issuing the corrigendum was solely to correct the tax period under adjudication. 16. Ms. Benjamin has also contended that the impugned corrigendum cannot be equated to a fresh show cause notice since the alleged transaction was already being investigated under the impugned show cause notice. Furthermore, post issuance of the show cause notice, the petitioner has submitted his reply dated 10.11.2025 qua the alleged transactions, and has been heard in the personal hearing dat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Supreme Court, including Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai (1998) 8 SCC 1, Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn Ltd. (2003) 2 SCC 107 and Commissioner of State Tax v. Commercial Steel Ltd. (supra) the following four conditions have been enumerated to bypass the statutory remedy - I. a breach of fundamental rights, II. a violation of principle of natural justice, III. an excess of jurisdiction or IV. a challenge to the vires of a statute or delegated legislation. 20. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Yakoob v K.S Radhakrishnan & Ors. 1963 SCC OnLine SC 24 delineated scope of interference in a writ of Certiorari to be those cases where there is a patent and apparent e....