TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1659
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T PER (ORAL) ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. 1. By way of the present Petition, the Petitioner seeks issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing of Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 22.11.2024 ['Impugned SCN'] issued by the Respondent No. 1 and the consequential Order-in-Original (OIO) dated 27.02.2025 ['Impugned OIO']. In addition, the Petitioner has also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 ['Act of 2017'], to the extent that it denies Input Tax Credit (ITC) to a bona fide recipient on account of non-payment of tax by the Supplier, inasmuch as this provision is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. BRIEF F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Appellate Authority. 6. During the pendency of the aforesaid appellate proceedings, the Respondent No.2 issued the Impugned SCN under Section 73 of the Act of 2017, allegedly, on the basis of information available in the Petitioner's GSTR-3B, GSTR-1, GSTR-2A, e-way bills and other records, that the Petitioner had not correctly declared its tax liability and had wrongly availed ITC in respect of supplies received from certain suppliers whose GST registration were subsequently cancelled. The total tax liability proposed under the Impugned SCN was quantified at Rs. 7,26,59,252/-, comprising SGST of Rs. 3,60,93,588/, CGST of Rs. 3,60,93,588/- and IGST of Rs. 4,72,076/-. 7. The aforesaid proceedings culminated in passing of the Impugn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the same transactions. The Respondents cannot maintain parallel proceedings or impose a duplicated tax burden on the same subject matter. Therefore, the Impugned SCN and OIO are liable to be set aside. ANALYSIS: 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court is of the considered view that the present Petition does not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution, and the Petitioner must be relegated to avail of the alternative remedy of Appeal under Section 107 of the Act of 2017, for the reasons recorded hereinafter. 13. Insofar as the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the Act of 2017 is concerned, the issue is no longer res integra. The prov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the record indicates that a hearing was in fact afforded and the Petitioner's reply was considered, though not accepted. Whether such consideration was adequate, or whether the Impugned OIO suffers from non-application of mind, would require a close scrutiny of the reply filed, the hearing notings, and the reasoning recorded, which is essentially a question of fact. 17. In the opinion of this Court, the aforestated is essentially a question of fact, the determination of which would necessitate examination of the underlying record, to be produced by the parties, and is not a matter that ought to be adjudicated for the first time in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. In any event, even if any infirmity in the hearing is made out, such in....