TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 769X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... articipate in the investigation and put forth his case. He has failed to participate in the proceedings on various occasions. The fake addresses of the petitioner s firm as well as suppliers do not make him eligible for any protection from this Court. The conduct of the petitioner is availing ineligible ITC of Rs. 10.38 Crores, amounts to playing fraud on the Public Exchequer. The case of the petitioner would prima facie be covered by Section 132(1)(c) read with Section 132(5) of the CGST Act, 2017. Considering that the Appeal of the petitioner regarding the cancellation of registration is already sub-judice before the appropriate authority, and the allegations made by the petitioner in the present writ petition, prima-facie, do not appear to be correct, therefore, we do not think that the petitioner should be granted any order of protection. After going through the petition along with the annexures, and the reply filed by the respondent No. 2 herein, we do not find that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of any protection. Prima facie, it appears that the petitioner, has in fact, availed the ITC, from non-existent entities. The burden of proof on the contrary is on the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Government, including uploading of the invoices issued by the petitioner s firm on the E-invoicing portal of the Government as well as uploading of the invoices from where goods are purchased on the website. It is the petitioner s case, that on compliance of the procedure, the petitioner s firm was eligible to avail ITC, reflected in the Credit Ledger. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner s firm has issued proper invoices in compliance of the statutory provisions as mandated under the CGST Act, 2017, and has made the payment of invoice value, including the amount of tax, through proper banking channel. 3. It is contended by the petitioner that inspite of following the procedure, the respondent No. 2 issued a communication to the petitioner on 27th January, 2021, for reversal of ITC (Input Tax Credit) passed on to him by his supplier M/s. Mahaveer Bullion. The petitioner appeared before the respondents and submitted the documents. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was forced to reverse the ITC for the purchase made by his supplier M/s. Mahaveer Bullion. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 3rd November, 2022 proposing cancella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uce a document or anything in any inquiry in the same manner as in Civil Court, under the provisions of C.P.C. The petitioner apprehends that the respondent No. 2 in exercise of his power under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017, would arrest him in violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. 7. The petitioner places reliance on the Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Gujrat V/s. Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer reported in (2023) 8 Centax 224 (S.C.) [17-03-2023] wherein it has been held that, if a person fears that his personal liberty is likely to be curtailed, he can approach the High Court in its writ jurisdiction, seeking protection orders. Hence, the petitioner is seeking Protection Orders from this Court. 8. Reply affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 2 opposing the writ petition. It is stated in the affidavit that, the intelligence revealed that, M/s. Devika Bullion i.e. petitioner s firm had availed fake ITC during the financial year 2019-20 to 2021-22 from suspicious entities. Based on the intelligence, a physical verification of M/s. Devika Bullion (legal name Shri. Prakash Rameshbhai Patel), was done as contemplated under Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chase invoices issued by the non-existent/ bogus suppliers without any actual supply of goods, and passed on ineligible ITC to its recipients during the said period. The said Act is in violation to Section 16(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, read with section 155 of the Act. 12. The respondents have also given the details of the visits to the given addresses of the suppliers in a tabular form, with the Tax Value of which, ITC is claimed by the petitioner. The place of business registered as well as residential address declared by the petitioner while obtaining GST registration was found to be fake. It is contended by the respondent that, the petitioner has availed the ITC of 10.38 Crores approximately on the strength of purchase invoices issued by the non-existent suppliers, which is in violation of Section 16(2) of the GST Act, 2017, which reads as under : 16(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, no registered person shall be entitled to the credit of any input tax in respect of any supply of goods or services or both to him unless, (a) he is in possession of a tax invoice or debit note issued by a supplier registered under this Act, or such other tax paying documents as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as availed ITC on the basis of purchase invoices issued by the non-existent/ bogus suppliers, without any actual supply of goods. Prima facie, the same is in clear violation of Section 16(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. It is pertinent to note that, the petitioner s firm, is not in existence on the three addresses given as the registered addresses, but even the suppliers, from whom the petitioner has claimed to have purchased the goods, are non-existent at their given address. The petitioner has not come before this Court with clean hands. The petitioner has been time and again issued various summons adhering to the provisions of law, in order to provide an opportunity to the petitioner, to participate in the investigation and put forth his case. He has failed to participate in the proceedings on various occasions. The fake addresses of the petitioner s firm as well as suppliers do not make him eligible for any protection from this Court. The conduct of the petitioner is availing ineligible ITC of Rs. 10.38 Crores, amounts to playing fraud on the Public Exchequer. 15. The case of the petitioner would prima facie be covered by Section 132(1)(c) read with Section 132(5) of the CGST Act, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
