TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 2068
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(ORAL) ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.: 1. While filing the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner prays for following substantive reliefs: "i. Your Lordship may be pleased to issue any appropriate Writ Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India requesting this Hon'ble Court to set aside show cause Notice Dated 05/08/2024 (Annexure P-2) and order dated 30/01/2025 (Annexure P-4) issued u/s CGST/DGST Act for AY 2017-18 in volition of provisions of CGST/DGST Act, ii. And also requesting to declare 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, ultra-virus of Article 14 of the Constitution as the petitioner cannot not be held liable for not depositing tax by the suppliers." FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Pursuant to a letter received from the Delhi East Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mands proposed against the Petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking our indulgence. SUBMISSION: 6. Learned counsel representing the Petitioner does not dispute that the Petitioner has an efficacious alternative statutory remedy of an Appeal against the Impugned OIO. However, he raised the following three grounds in support of his case. 7. Firstly, it is his case that the proceedings culminating in passing of the Impugned OIO are non est in law, being barred by Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (to be read as Act of 2017). It is contended that proceedings had already been initiated by the Respondent No.2 prior in point of time in respect of the same subject matter.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erusal of the Impugned OIO makes it evident that the Petitioner, inter alia, was engaged in issuing invoices without any corresponding supply of goods, was not carrying out any actual business activity, and had suppliers who were either non-existent or whose registrations were subsequently cancelled with retrospective effect. In addition to the aforestated, the OIO also records wrongful availment and utilisation of ITC amounting to Rs. 3,53,40,345/- and the passing on of ITC amounting to Rs. 3,24,67,297/-. It is against this backdrop that the Impugned SCN came to be issued under Section 74 of the Act of 2017. 13. Thus, the allegations, the material relied upon and the nature of the default are different in the two proceedings. In particu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act of 2017, is concerned, it may be noted that a Division Bench of Gujarat High Court, by way of its judgment dated 01.05.2026, in Maruti Enterprise v Union of India and Ors. 2026 SCC OnLine Guj 4013 held the provision to be intra vires and not unconstitutional. Whereafter, the Supreme Court, vide a speaking Order dated 24.07.2026 in SLP(C) No.23931/2026 titled Bhandari Scrap Traders v Union of India & Ors affirmed the aforesaid view taken by the Gujarat High Court. In view of the position being settled by the Supreme Court, we are not inclined to interfere with the same and find no reason to take a different view. CONCLUSION: 16. In view of the aforestated, no ground is made out to entertain the present Petition, by passing the sta....