9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 922X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assailing the Order-in-Original bearing no. 220/CGST/ADC(SKJ)/2024-2025 dated 30th January, 2025 (hereinafter 'impugned order') passed by the Respondent No. 3-Additional Commissioner-Adjudication Central Goods And Services Tax, Delhi West Commissionerate. The said impugned order arises out of Show Cause Notice (hereinafter, 'SCN') dated 31st July, 2024, which was issued to several companies. 3. In brief, the case of the Department is that two individuals namely Mr. Anuj Garg and his father Mr. Mukesh Kumar Garg i.e. the Petitioner had incorporated or established 28 firms. Thereafter, in collusion with various other traders the Petitioner had availed of fake Input Tax Credit (hereinafter, 'ITC') without any supply of goods or services. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Anuj Garg. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that under such circumstances, the penalty which has been imposed against the Petitioner deserves to be quashed. 8. On behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Ms. Benjamin, ld. Sr. Standing Counsel submits that all the tax returns are filed by authorized signatories, who are usually directors or promoters of the company. In the case of the Petitioner, one of the firms, which was set up to enable the fraudulent availment of ITC, was M/s Bhagwati Trading Company, which is the sole proprietary concern of the Petitioner. Insofar as the said firm was concerned, the same was coming within the jurisdiction of another Commissionerate and hence, the SCN was not issued M/s Bhagwati Trading Compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tary concern of the Petitioner and not the equivalent amount of penalty as is being imposed on the remaining companies, which were found to be availing of the ITC. 10. On a query from the Court, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that Mr. Anuj Garg has already challenged the very same impugned order before the Appellate Authority vide Appeal No. 380/GST/DtAppeal-II/2025-26 dated 29th April, 2025. 11. The Court has considered the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is an exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The allegations against the Petitioner in the impugned order are extremely serious in nature. They reveal the complex maze of transactions, which are alleged to have been carried out between various ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , which resulted in the imposition of demands and penalties. The demands and penalties have been imposed on a large number of firms and individuals, who were connected in the entire maze and not just the Petitioner. 15. The impugned order is an appealable order under Section 107 of the CGST Act. One of the co-noticees, who is also the son of the Petitioner i.e. Mr. Anuj Garg, has already appealed before the Appellate Authority. 16. Insofar as exercise of writ jurisdiction itself is concerned, it is the settled position that this jurisdiction ought not be exercised by the Court to support the unscrupulous litigants. 17. Moreover, when such transactions are entered into, a factual analysis would be required to be undertaken and the same ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... afforded a hearing. 22. Some of the firms and individuals connected to the Petitioner have already availed of the appellate remedy. Thus, no ground for entertaining the present petition exists in the facts of this case. 23. Considering the fact that the Petitioner's son has already availed of the appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act in respect of the same very impugned order dated 30th January, 2025, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition ought not to be entertained, especially considering the seriousness of allegations against the Petitioner. 24. It is well settled in various decisions of the Supreme Court that petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be liable to be entertained o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of writ courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because "the court knows law but not facts"." ● Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, (2010) 14 SCC 38 "21. The principle that a person who does not come to the court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance and, in any case, such person is not entitled to any relief is applicable not only to the petitions filed under Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
