9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 1316 - HC - GSTFraudulent I.T.C. Claim for inward supplies - tax invoices had been issued without any actual supply of goods - review petition - Order XLVII, Rule 1 (1) C.P.C. Fraudulent I.T.C. Claim for inward supplies - HELD THAT - The petitioner had fulfilled the documentary requirements and the input tax credit was granted to him. Subsequently, in an enquiry conducted by the Special Investigation Branch, it came to light that the firms from which the petitioner claimed to have received inward supplies, were non-existent and bogus. Neither the firms were found on the addresses, claimed by them, nor could any godown or other premises of those firms be found and it appeared that the firms were existing on paper only. The non-existent firms could not have made any actual supplies. Merely because the firm was registered on the date of transaction, it cannot be said that the department was bound to give I.T.C. benefit to the petitioner, even though it has been revealed later on the firm was non-existent and it could not have made any actual supplies - This Court found that the appellate authority had passed the impugned order after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record. Review petition - HELD THAT - The Officers of Special Investigating Branch had conducted a survey of premises of the suppliers from whom the petitioner claims to have received inward supplies and they found that the three firms from which the petitioner claims to have received supplies, namely M/s Ridhi Sidhi Enterprises, M/s Siddharth Trading Company and M/s Satvik Enterprises, were non-existent and bogus and the invoices had been issued without any actual supply of goods, upon which the petitioner had fraudulently taken benefit of Input Tax Credit. The Appellate Authority found that the petitioner had produced 04 goods receipts issued by Goyal Goods Carry Corporation, which were on different formats and the GSTIN mentioned on the receipts was found to be not valid, as per the information available on the common portal - No material was placed by the petitioner to rebut the aforesaid factual findings based on the survey of the premises of the supplier firms made by officials of Special Investigating Branch. While examining the validity of the aforesaid findings, this Court found that the findings were based on sufficient material and did not require any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court. In these circumstances, the allegation leveled in the review petition that this Court has blindly believed the stand of the revenue, is also without any substance. The material which the petitioner now produced before this Court, could have very well be brought by him before the Appellate Authority by exercise of due diligence, but he did not do so. Moreover, it supports the findings of the appellate authority that the GST number and the mobile number mentioned on the transporter s receipt were fake. Therefore, the copy of the affidavit of Vishal Goyal filed by the petitioner along with the review application does not provide any good ground for review of the earlier order. The review petition is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Fraudulent ITC Claims 2. Validity of Supplier Firms 3. Review Petition Grounds 4. Legal Standards for Review Summary: Fraudulent ITC Claims: The petitioner, engaged in the manufacture and sale of Aluminum Casting & Machinery Parts, filed GSTR 3B for specific months in 2019. A survey by the Deputy Commissioner, Special Investigation Branch, revealed that the petitioner fraudulently claimed ITC benefits of Rs. 10,12,491/- based on fake invoices from non-existent firms, violating provisions of law. Validity of Supplier Firms: The adjudicating authority issued a notice u/s 74, and despite the petitioner submitting various documents to support the claim of inward supplies, the authority found the firms to be non-existent and bogus. Consequently, the benefit of ITC was declined, and penalties and interest were imposed. The appellate authority corroborated these findings, noting discrepancies in transport documents and invalid GSTIN numbers. Review Petition Grounds: The petitioner sought a review of the court's order dated 14.05.2024, alleging errors apparent on the face of the record and that the court had blindly believed the revenue's stand without proper verification. The petitioner also cited Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C., claiming the discovery of new evidence, including an affidavit from the transporter. Legal Standards for Review: The court examined the provisions of Order XLVII, Rule 1 (1) C.P.C., and referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in S. Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. V. Narayan Reddy, emphasizing that a review is not an appeal in disguise and is only permissible for errors apparent on the face of the record. The court found that the order dated 14.05.2024 considered all submissions and materials presented by the petitioner. The review petition's allegations were deemed unsubstantial, and the affidavit from the transporter did not provide grounds for review as it could have been presented earlier with due diligence. Conclusion: The review petition was dismissed, with the court deprecating the disrespectful manner of drafting the review application. The court upheld the findings of fraudulent ITC claims and the non-existence of supplier firms, affirming the penalties and interest imposed by the adjudicating and appellate authorities.
|
