9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 933X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alia, assailing the impugned Order-in-Original bearing no. 26/RK/ADC/CGST/DSC/2024-25 dated 16th January, 2025 (hereinafter, 'impugned order') by which the Central Goods and Service Tax Department (hereinafter, 'CGST Department') has imposed a penalty to the tune of Rs. 16,15,28,668/- on the Petitioner. 3. The case of the Petitioner is that he was working as an accountant in M/s XEL Infomatics, M/s NexGen Busicorp and G W Infotech Pvt. Ltd. An investigation was conducted upon complaints received from the Ghaziabad Goods and Service Tax (hereinafter, 'GST') Commissionerate that one M/s Monga Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. was availing Input Tax Credit (hereinafter, 'ITC') fraudulently from fake/non-existing firms. 4. A visit to the premises of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the premises of the entities where the Petitioner worked, it was seen that there was no physical stock of ferrous and non-ferrous items and the entire premises was only full of garments. 8. The role of the Petitioner, as the accountant, is set out in detail in the SCN. The Petitioner was fully aware of the proceedings that were commenced against him, the other related persons and the entities. The impugned order has thereafter been passed on 16th January, 2025. 9. In the impugned order, the CGST Department has raised a demand of inadmissible ITC to the tune of Rs. 19,98,67,366/- which was wrongly availed by M/s Monga Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. Penalties have also been imposed on various firms which had enabled M/s Monga Iron and Steel Pvt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2023 and 17th March, 2023, the address of the Petitioner is reflected as resident of 104, Parmarth Apartment, Vikas Puri, New Delhi, West Delhi, Delhi-110018 which has been signed by the Petitioner and no other address has been provided to the CGST Department. It is further urged on behalf of the Respondent that the impugned order is an appealable order. 14. The Court has considered the matter. A perusal of the SCN and the impugned order would show that there are various facts which are intricately connected to each other which has led to the finding by the adjudicating authority of the CGST Department that there was clear fraudulent availment of inadmissible ITC. 15. The total number of firms which are set out in the impugned order as al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der dated 16th January, 2025 is clearly an appealable order under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter, 'CGST Act'). 20. On a query from the Court, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he is not aware as to whether Mr. Yogesh Monga and others have preferred an appeal or not. 21. The stand of other entities and individuals against whom demands have been raised and penalties have been imposed may also be necessary in the adjudication in the present case. The appellate jurisdiction would be the appropriate jurisdiction to comprehensively adjudicate the matter. 22. In so far as the stand of the Petitioner that he has not retained the benefit of any transaction is concerned, the same would also be a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
