TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1202
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e GST registrations, one each in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Telangana, and the Impugned Order confirms a separate demand against each of its registration. Since the challenges to these demands raise substantially overlapping questions of fact and law, the petitions are, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, being disposed of by this common order. 3. The Petitioners acknowledge that the Impugned Order is appealable under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'CGST Act'). They nevertheless seek interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the grounds that their reply was not considered, that the Central authorities lacked jurisdiction, and that Circular No. 171/03/2022-GST dated 06.07.2022 precludes the demand raised against them. The short question is whether these objections justify bypassing the statutory Appeal. For the reasons that follow, they do not. 4. The proceedings arose from an investigation conducted by the Kanpur Regional Unit of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (hereinafter referred to as 'DGGI') into an alleged chain of invoices issued without corresponding supplies. Acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n view of the decision of this Court dated 05.08.2026 in Shub Conductors LLP and Ors. v. Joint Commissioner, Central Tax GST, Delhi East and Ors., W.P.(C) 4126/2025. It is, therefore, unnecessary to examine that contention. The earlier prima facie observation shall not be treated as a final determination concerning the identity or scope of the two proceedings. 9. Mr. Anandaday Misshra, learned counsel representing the Petitioners has made the following three submissions: i. The reply dated 17.04.2024 and the documents filed with it were not considered. The Impugned Order, therefore, does not satisfy Sections 74(9) and 75(6) of the CGST Act. ii. Since the Petitioners' registrations are administratively assigned to the State tax authorities in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Telangana, DGGI could neither issue the SCN nor could the Additional Commissioner, CGST Delhi North adjudicate it. In any event, Circular No. 239/33/2024-GST dated 04.12.2024 required the proceedings to be adjudicated at Chennai or Rangareddy. iii. Even if the Department's allegation that invoices were issued without underlying supplies is assumed to be correct, serial No. 3 of Circular No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Petitioners, it discloses the basis on which their claim to ITC was rejected. 15. The Petitioners contend that the documents placed by them establish the very facts which the Adjudicating Authority found unproved. Examination of that contention would require the work orders issued by Sunil Hitech to be matched with the corresponding subcontracts, invoices, payments and evidence of execution in each State. This is not a case where the Petitioners were denied notice or personal hearing, or where the Impugned Order discloses no reasons for the decision. Their grievance concerns the adequacy of those reasons and the correctness of the appreciation of a voluminous factual record. Both can be effectively examined in Appeal. In these circumstances, the omission to reproduce the Petitioners' reply does not warrant setting aside the entire adjudication in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 16. The jurisdictional objection has two distinct limbs. The first concerns the authority of DGGI to proceed against taxpayers assigned to the State tax administration. Notification No. 14/2017-Central Tax dated 01.07.2017 appoints the specified DGGI officers as Central tax officers and confers upon the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The reliance upon Circular No. 171/03/2022-GST raises a different question. The Circular distinguishes between two situations. Where a person avails ITC on an invoice unsupported by an inward supply but uses that credit for tax on a genuine outward supply, serial No. 2 contemplates recovery under Section 74. Where both the inward and outward invoices are unsupported by supplies, serial No. 3 states that recovery under Sections 73 or 74 is not required, though penal action under Section 122 may follow. The Circular also recognises that an actual case may involve a mixture of these situations. 22. The Petitioners' primary case is that both the subcontracted work received from Univista and the outward supply made to Sunil Hitech was genuine. Their reliance upon serial No. 3 is expressly in the alternative and cannot be treated as an admission to the contrary. The Impugned Order declines to apply the Circular on the ground that it was issued after the SCN. Whether that reason is correct, which situation under the Circular applies, and what consequence follows for the demand and penalties depend upon the character of the inward and outward transactions. These matters fall squarely ....