TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1287
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd the Show Cause Notice dated 29.2.2024. 2. The petitioner is engaged in the activities of trading of scrap. It appears that upon receipt of the intelligence from the Central Goods and Service Tax, Vadodara informing about the fraudulent Input Tax Credit (for short 'ITC') availed by the petitioner from M/s Ganpati Enterprises, a search was conducted at the declared premises of the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent-authority issued a Show Cause Notice dated 29.2.2024 suggesting imposition of penalties under Section 122(1)(vii) and Section 122(1) (xii), (xvi), (xvii) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'the CGST Act'). The petitioner thereafter filed a reply and he was also granted an opportunity for a personal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Show Cause Notice relate to a much later period and since the period in question is not specified, the Show Cause Notice alongwith the Order in Original is required to be quashed. Thus, it is urged that the impugned Show Cause Notice and the Order in Original are required to be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Shashvata Shukla, appearing for the respondents has submitted that the writ-petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has a statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. So far as the incomplete issuance of the Show Cause Notice of three pages is concerned, it is submitted that the same is also incorrect as the petitioner was supplied the same vide email and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was well aware about the allegations levelled against him. 4.2 It is submitted that there is a serious allegation which pertains to dubious transactions with non-existent entities spanning from October 2018 to 2019 and it is urged that the impugned Notice as well as Order may not require to be quashed and set aside. 5. At the outset, we may record that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act which is not denied. However, since the petitioner is inviting the order on merits, we are constrained to do so. 6. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the intelligence received by the respondent Department, a physical verification was conducted on the premises of the petitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otice or the Order in Original on this count, more particularly, when this aspect will fall within the domain of appreciation of the facts, which can be done by the appellate authority. 8. With regard to the second allegation about non-receipt of the RUD's and non-mentioning of the period in question for which the allegations of fraudulent availment of ITC is concerned, the respondent in its reply has submitted that due to inadvertent mistake in the list of reliedupon documents, in the Show Cause Notice it was inadvertently mentioned as the year 2021 for the GST return, however, the period for investigation and subsequent demand relate to October 2018 to November 2019, spanning financial years 2018-19 and 2019-20. Hence, as mentioned....