TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tters were taken up for hearing together. This Court did not advice any counsel to argue in a particular manner or not to argue at all. It is only when the petitioner concluded their arguments that this Court called upon learned counsel for respondents to argue. Today to state that learned counsel for respondents should confine their arguments to the issue of law or the petitioner should be allowed to argue first would amount to derailing the hearing. Moreover, question of law cannot be decided in a vacuum. The facts put forward by the respondents would help the Court in determining the question of law correctly - Since, in the interim, investigation by DGGI Ahmedabad has been stayed and in effect no investigation is taking place, this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o International Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. being, WP(C) 2420/2021, the petitioner firm appears to be involved in availment and utilization of fake ITC of more than ₹ 100 crores, supply of low-grade tobacco products in the garb of smoking mixture for pipes and cigarettes , and overvaluation of its products to pass on huge fake ITC to certain entities, located all across Delhi NCR region, which are inter-connected and it is not possible for the jurisdictional CGST Commissionerate to carry out a thorough investigation due to its limited territorial jurisdiction. He has referred to thirteen investigations being carried out by different authorities as mentioned in the additional affidavit filed on behalf of respondents No. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were the masterminds behind this modus operandi to defraud the public exchequer. Investigations also revealed that the petitioner firm M/s Mridul Tobie Inc, Noida is also one of the beneficiaries of fake ITC generated in the name of some of the nonexistent entities by paper transactions without corresponding supply of goods, including smoking mixture for pipes and cigarettes . Further, investigation also includes the issue of Overvaluation and Misclassification of the product by M/s Mridul Tobie Inc. Remarks: During search operation, it was observed that the goods seized by the DGGI, Delhi Zonal Unit under panchanama dated 14.01.2021 were not available at the premises. This search was conducted by DGGI, Ahmedabad Zonal Unit with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remises of M/ s Palmon Export (GSTIN- 24AAHFP4369G2Z3), M/ s Sugandha Exports (GSTIN- 24AJEPB3156B2ZZ) and M/s Shivam Betelnuts Pvt Ltd. (GSTIN- 24AAUCS0489A1Z9) on 18/ 19.09.2019, 24/25.09.2019 and 21.09.2019 respectively, all located in KASEZ and at the premises of certain Domestic Tariff Area suppliers. To verify the contents of intelligence, searches were also conducted at the premises of certain entities from whom these DTA suppliers had claimed to have purchased the goods. The action by the respondents taken initially is pictorially depicted as under: A B C Entities making supplies to Delhi NCR based suppliers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07AWBPK3048B2Z0 Shriniwas Exports 29700000 TOTAL 34,38,41,490 The DTA suppliers in turn, have claimed ITC of said amount and have claimed/ attempted to claim refund of such ITC against supplies made to KASEZ. 4. Mr. Harpreet Singh, learned counsel for Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax and CGST Delhi West, states that enquiry initiated by his client against M/s Pawanputra Exim, in which the petitioner s premises were also searched, has been forwarded to DGGI, Ahmedabad. In fact, a categorical averment has been made in the said counter affidavit that CGST Delhi West Commissionerate is no longer conducting a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... State GST authorities at Gautam Budh Nagar. Mr. Ganesh, learned senior counsel clarifies that he is not appearing in W.P.(C) 4036/2021 and W.P.(C) 5816/2021. He reiterates that he in his rejoinder argument will stick to his question of law that he argued in his opening arguments. 6. Right from the day the final hearing commenced all the aforesaid matters were taken up for hearing together. This Court did not advice any counsel to argue in a particular manner or not to argue at all. It is only when the petitioner concluded their arguments that this Court called upon learned counsel for respondents to argue. Today to state that learned counsel for respondents should confine their arguments to the issue of law or the petitioner should be a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
