# M/S Rajshi Processors Raebareli v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 1467
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-14
- **Case number:** Writ Tax No. 128 of 2024
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-rajshi-processors-raebareli-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51944
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

1468 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Civil Law - GST Act, 2017 - Sections 16(2)
& 74 - Rule 36 - Petitioner- Assailed the
order imposing tax liability and penalty for
the payment of false input tax credit-
Petitioner had filed GSTR 3B- Inward
supplies
from
different
firms-
Investigation by the authority- Firms nonexistent and bogus- Petitioner knowingly
claimed excessive amount towards in his
GSTR-2A- Show cause notice under Section
74 of the Act- Explanation dissatisfactory-
Impugned
order
passed-
Appeal
dismissed- Received the goods means the
person claiming ITC must have actually
received the goods- No supplies actually
received by the petitioner- No estoppel
against the authority for claiming refund of
benefit wrongly availed- Writ petition
dismissed. (Paras 17 and 21)

HELD:
Section 16 of the GST Act provides the eligibility
conditions for taking input tax credit and Sub
Section 2(b) provides that no registered person
shall be entitled to the credit of any input tax in
respect of any supply of goods unless he has
received the goods. "Received the goods means
the person claiming input tax credit must have
actually received the goods". Where a person
merely produces document, mentioned in Rule
36 regarding receipt of goods, he has actually not
received any goods and it is established that the
8 transaction of goods was merely a paper
transaction, without any actual supply of goods,
the person will not be entitled to get the benefit
of input tax credit in view of the provision
contained in Section 16(2)(b) of the GST Act,

## Text

5 All. M/S Rajshi Processors Raebareli Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1467
hold, when the appeal was filed and the
appellant had appeared in the appeal on
caveat and since it was not raised, it cannot
be raised at this stage. However, it doesn't
affect the merits of the case or jurisdiction of
the court, therfore it cannot be a ground for
reversing or modifying the decree in view of
Section 99 CPC and it is a settled law that
the first appeal is in continuation of the
proceedings of the suit. Thus, the Second
substantial question of law is answered
accordingly.

49. One of the issues raised by
learned counsel for the respondents was
that no substantial question of law arises
in this case and the factual findings
recorded by the appellate court cannot be
interfered by this Court. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court, in the case of Nazir
Mohamed
versus
Kamala
and
Others(supra), has held that whether a
question of law is a substantial one and
whether such question is involved in the
case or not, would depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case. Thus this
Court is of the view that the substantial
questions of law were rightly and in
accordance
with
law
have
been
formulated, which have been answered by
this Court after considering the rival
contentions.

50. Learned counsel for the
respondent, relying on the case of
G.Amalorpavam and others versus R.C.
Diocese Of Madurai & Ors(supra), had
submitted that the first appellate court is a
final court of facts and the findings of fact
recorded by it cannot be challenged before
the High Court in second appeal. This case
is not applicable on the facts and
circumstances of the case because the first
appellate court has failed to consider the
legal issues involved in the case, which are
substantial, as dealt by this Court in this
judgment.
51. In view of above and
considering
the
overall
facts
and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of
the view that the first appellate court has
allowed the appeal wrongly and illegally
without considering the legal issues
involved in the case. Therefore in view of
the aforesaid findings recorded by this
Court in regard to the substantial questions
of law no.(3) and (1) formulated by this
Court,it is not sustainable. Thus the appeal
is liable to be allowed and the judgment
and decree passed by the first appellate
court is liable to be set aside.

52. The Second Appeal is,
accordingly, allowed. The judgment and
decree dated 05.03.2010 passed by the
Additional
District
Judge,
Court
No.7,Raibareli in Civil Appeal No.86/2009;
Smt.Siyawati versus Smt. Anarkali and
others is hereby set aside. No order as to
costs.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1467
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ Tax No. 128 of 2024

M/S Rajshi Processors Raebareli
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anurag Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
1468 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Civil Law - GST Act, 2017 - Sections 16(2)
& 74 - Rule 36 - Petitioner- Assailed the
order imposing tax liability and penalty for
the payment of false input tax credit-
Petitioner had filed GSTR 3B- Inward
supplies
from
different
firms-
Investigation by the authority- Firms nonexistent and bogus- Petitioner knowingly
claimed excessive amount towards in his
GSTR-2A- Show cause notice under Section
74 of the Act- Explanation dissatisfactory-
Impugned
order
passed-
Appeal
dismissed- Received the goods means the
person claiming ITC must have actually
received the goods- No supplies actually
received by the petitioner- No estoppel
against the authority for claiming refund of
benefit wrongly availed- Writ petition
dismissed. (Paras 17 and 21)

HELD:
Section 16 of the GST Act provides the eligibility
conditions for taking input tax credit and Sub
Section 2(b) provides that no registered person
shall be entitled to the credit of any input tax in
respect of any supply of goods unless he has
received the goods. "Received the goods means
the person claiming input tax credit must have
actually received the goods". Where a person
merely produces document, mentioned in Rule
36 regarding receipt of goods, he has actually not
received any goods and it is established that the
8 transaction of goods was merely a paper
transaction, without any actual supply of goods,
the person will not be entitled to get the benefit
of input tax credit in view of the provision
contained in Section 16(2)(b) of the GST Act,
2017. (Para 17)

Undisputedly, the petitioner had fulfilled the
requirements and, therefore, the input tax
credit was claimed and was granted to him.
However, when an enquiry was conducted by
the Special Investigation Branch subsequently,
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 was any godown or other
premises of those firms could be found. It
appears that the firms were existing on paper
only. (Para 18)

It is settled law that fraud vitiates even the most
solemn proceedings and the mere fact that the
I.T.C. benefit had earlier been granted to the
petitioner merely because the firms were
registered, would not create any estoppel against
the authority taking appropriate action for
claiming refund of the benefit wrongly availed by
the petitioner on the ground of receiving inward
supplies from non-existent firms. (Para 21)

Application dismissed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

W.P.(C) 6093/2017 (On Quest Merchandising
India Pvt. Ltd. Vs government of NCT of Delhi &
Others) [Delhi High Court]

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,
J.)

1. Heard Sri Pranjal Shukla, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikram
Soni, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel.

2. By means of the instant petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing
of the order dated 16.07.2021 passed by the
Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax,
Division-1,
Raebareli,
Lucknow
(B),
whereby the tax liability and penalty has
been imposed on the petitioner on the
ground that he had been paid false input tax
credit. The petitioner has also challenged the
validity of an order dated 10.04.2024 passed
by Additional Commissioner. Grade-2
(Appeal)-Ist, State Tax, Lucknow, whereby
the Appeal bearing number GST 37/2021,
filed by the petitioner, against the aforesaid
order dated 16.07.2021, has been dismissed.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case
are that the petitioner is engaged in
manufacturing and sale of Aluminum
Casting & Machinery Parts. The petitioner
5 All. M/S Rajshi Processors Raebareli Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1469
had filed GSTR 3B for the month of May,
2019, August, 2019 and December, 2019.
The
Deputy
Commissioner,
Special
Investigation Branch, Commercial Tax,
Lucknow had conducted a survey of the
place of business on 25.02.2020. During
survey it was found that the petitioner
claimed to have received inward supplies
worth Rs.16,39,200/-from M/s Ridhi Sidhi
Enterprises (GSTIN-09FDTPD8965GIZQ),
worth Rs. 17,25,160/- from M/s Siddhartha
Trading
Company
(GSTIN09HUCPK4270HIZF)
and
worth
Rs.
29,78,025/- from M/s Satvik Enterprises
(GSTIN-09GSRPK8763FIZV) and claimed
Rs.2,95,056/-,
Rs.2,63,160/-
and
Rs.
4,54,275/-
respectively
towards
I.T.C.
Claim for inward supplies received from the
aforesaid firms. When the survey of the
aforesaid three firms was conducted by the
Special Investigation Branch, Agra, it came
to the light that all the aforesaid three firms
were non-existent and bogus firms. Besides
the place of business declared by the
aforesaid three firms, no other godown or
Branch was found to be in existence. The
petitioner had fraudulently claimed I.T.C.
benefit of Rs.10,12,491/- without any actual
supply of goods, on the basis of the fake
invoice issued by the aforesaid three nonexistence
bogus
firms.
The
Special
Investigation Branch found in the enquiry
that the petitioner has knowingly claimed
excessive amount towards I.T.C. in his
GSTR-2A, on the basis of an auto
formulated I.T.C. and had adjusted the same
in the tax payable by him. Thus, the
petitioner claimed a total of Rs. 15,93,491/-
I.T.C. in violation of the provisions of law.

4. The adjudicating authority had
issued a notice under Section 74 on
03.08.2021. The petitioner submitted his
explanation alongwith the evidence, stating
that it had received inward supplies worth
Rs.16,39,200/- from M/s Ridhi Sidhi
Enterprises, Rs. 17,25,160/- from M/s
Siddhartha Trading Company and Rs.
29,78,025/- from M/s Satvik Enterprises and
had claimed I.T.C. claim of Rs.2,95,056/-,
Rs.2,63,160/-
and
Rs.4,54,275/-
respectively regarding the goods received
from the aforesaid three firms. In support of
its claim of actual receipt of inward supplies,
the petitioner had submitted invoices, copies
of GR (goods receipts), e-way bill, laser and
bank statements of the firms, evidence of
transaction of amounts through RTGS and
evidence of physical receipts of goods. The
inward supplies received by the petitioner
have been entered in the stock register.

5. The adjudicating authority did not
accept the explanation of the petitioner
because the Special Investigation Branch,
Agra had found the aforesaid three firms,
namely, M/s Ridhi Sidhi Enterprises, M/s
Siddhartha Trading Company and M/s
Satvik Enterprises to be non-existent and
bogus and that the tax invoices had been
issued without any actual supply of goods
upon which the petitioner had fraudulently
taken benefit of I.T.C. The adjudicating
authority declined the benefit of I.T.C. to the
petitioner and imposed penalty on the
petitioner and fixed the liability of interest
also.

6. The petitioner filed an appeal
against
the
aforesaid
order
of
the
adjudicating authority.

7. The appellate authority found that in
his explanation submitted before the
adjudicating authority, the petitioner had
produced GR No. 213/dated 13.05.2019,
694/dated
21.08.2019,
695/dated
21.08.2019 and 1363/dated 15.12.2019
issued
by
M/s
Goyal
Goods Carry
Corporation, Daresi No. 2, Agra as evidence
1470 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
for transport of goods from Agra to
Raebareli. The adjudicating authority found
that GR No. 213/dated 13.05.2019 and
1363/dated 15.12.2019 had been issued on a
similar format, whereas GR No. 694/dated
21.08.2019 and 696/dated 21.08.2019 had
been issued on a different format, whereas
all of those have been issued by the same
transport company and it had no other
branch. The GSTIN-09AJBPG5336KIZ5
and phone number 6395078684 was
mentioned at the transport builty. GST is
payable on transport services. When an
enquiry was conducted on the basis of
GSTIN number mentioned on the transport
Bilty, the GSTIN was found to be not valid
as per the information available on the
common
portal.
The
phone
number
mentioned on the transport Bilty, was found
to be in use of some lady at Kasganj. From
the aforesaid facts, it appears that the Bilties
had been attached with the explanation of
the petitioner to somehow show the real
inward supply by making adjustments. The
adjudicating authority found that the alleged
supplier firms were non-existence and the
Bilties had been produced merely to
establish transactions with non-existing
firms. No goods were transported from Agra
to Raebareli and the transactions were paper
transactions only.

8. The appellate Authority found that
keeping in view the aforesaid facts, there
was no reason for making any interference
in the order passed by the adjudicating
authority.

9. While assailing the validity of the
aforesaid orders, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that the petitioner
had actually received inward supplies which
is established from the records produced
before the adjudicating authority. The
supplier firms were having valid GSTIN
registration when the petitioner had received
the supplies. In case GSTIN registration of
the firm is cancelled subsequently, the
petitioner cannot be penalized for the same.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has
further submitted that the GST registration
of the aforesaid three firms was cancelled on
their own request.

10. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has drawn attention of this Court
towards the provisions of Section 16(2) of
the GST Act, 2017 which provides as
follows:

"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 may be prescribed;

[(aa) the details of the invoice of
debit note referred to in clause (a) has been
furnished by the supplier in the statement of
outward supplies and such details have been
communicated to the recipient of such
invoice or debit note in the manner specified
under Section 37:]

(b) he has received the goods or
services or both.

[Explanation.-For the purposes
of this clause, it shall be deemed that the
registered person has received the goods or,
as the case may be services-

(i) where the goods are delivered
by the supplier to a recipient or any other
person on the direction of such registered
person, whether acting as an agent or
otherwise, before or during movement of
goods, either by way of transfer of
documents of title to goods or otherwise; (ii)
where the services are provided by the
5 All. M/S Rajshi Processors Raebareli Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1471
supplier to any person on the direction of
and on account of such registered person.]

(c) subject to the provisions of
[section 41 or Section 43A], the tax charged
in respect of such supply has been actually
paid to the Government, either in cash or
through utilisation of input tax credit
admissible in respect of the said supply; and

(d) he has furnished the return
under section 39:

Provided that where the goods
against an invoice are received in lots or
instalments, the registered person shall be
entitled to take credit upon receipt of the last
lot or instalment:

Provided further that where a
recipient fails to pay to the supplier of goods
or services or both, other than the supplies
on which tax is payable on reverse charge
basis, the amount towards the value of
supply along with tax payable thereon
within a period of one hundred and eighty
days from the date of issue of invoice by the
supplier, an amount equal to the input tax
credit availed by the recipient shall be
added to his output tax liability, along with
interest thereon, in such manner as may be
prescribed:

Provided also that the recipient
shall be entitled to avail of the credit of input
tax on payment made by him of the amount
towards the value of supply of goods or
services or both along with tax payable
thereon."

11. Rule 36 of GST Rules, 2007
provides as follows:

"Rule
36.
Documentary
requirements and conditions for claiming
input tax credit.-

(1) The input tax credit shall be
availed by a registered person, including the
Input Service Distributor, on the basis of any
of the following documents, namely,-

(a) an invoice issued by the
supplier of goods or services or both in
accordance with the provisions of section
31;

(b)
an
invoice
issued
in
accordance with the provisions of clause (f)
of sub-section (3) of section 31, subject to
the payment of tax;

(c) a debit note issued by a
supplier in accordance with the provisions
of section 34;

(d) a bill of entry or any similar
document prescribed under the Customs
Act, 1962 or rules made thereunder for the
assessment of integrated tax on imports;

(e) an Input Service Distributor
invoice or Input Service Distributor credit
note or any document issued by an Input
Service Distributor in accordance with the
provisions of sub-rule (1) of rule 54.

(2) Input tax credit shall be availed
by a registered person only if all the
applicable particulars as specified in the
provisions of Chapter VI are contained in
the said document and the relevant
information, as contained in the said
document, is furnished in FORM G.S.T.R.-
2 by such person:

[Provided
that
if
the
said
document does not contain all the specified
particulars but contains the details of the
amount of tax charged, description of goods
or services, total value of supply of goods or
services or both, G.S.T.I.N. of the supplier
and recipient and place of supply in case of
inter-State supply, input tax credit may be
availed by such registered person.]

(3) No input tax credit shall be
availed by a registered person in respect of
any tax that has been paid in pursuance of
any order where any demand has been
confirmed on account of any fraud, willful
misstatement or suppression of facts.

[(4) Input tax credit to be availed
by a registered person in respect of invoices
1472 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
or debit notes the details of which are
required to be furnished by the suppliers
under sub-section (1) of Section 37 [In
FORM G.S.T.R.-01 or using the invoice
furnishing facility] shall not exceed [5 per
cent] of the eligible credit available. In
respect of invoices or debit notes the details
of which have been furnished by the
suppliers under sub-section (1) of Section 37
[In FORM G.S.T.R.-01 or using the invoice
furnishing facility] under sub-

[Provided that the said condition
shall apply cumulatively for the period
February, March, April, May, June, July and
August, 2020 and the return in FORM
G.S.T.R.-3B for the tax period September,
2020 shall be furnished with the cumulative
adjustment of input tax credit for the said
months in accordance with the condition
above:]

[Provided
further
that
such
condition shall apply cumulatively for the
period April, May and June, 2021 and the
return in Form G.S.T.R.-3B for the tax
period June 2021 or quarter ending June,
2021, as the case may be, shall be furnished
with the cumulatively adjustment of input
tax credit for the said months in accordance
with the condition above:]"

12. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that for availing
inputs tax credit, the petitioner was
merely required to be in possession of a
tax invoice or debit note issued by the
supplier, receipt of goods and actual
payment of tax to the Government. As per
learned counsel for the petitioner, all the
aforesaid three requirement of Section 16
of the GST Act, 2017 had been fulfilled
by
the
petitioner.
The
documents,
required to be submitted for claiming
I.T.C. benefit, as mentioned in Rule 36 of
GST Rules 2017, had been furnished by
the petitioner.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has placed reliance on a decision of Delhi
High Court passed in W.P.(C) 6093/2017
(On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. government of NCT of Delhi &
Others) alongwith some other connected
matters, decided on 26.10.2017, wherein the
Delhi High Court held as under:

"39. Applying the law explained
in the above decisions, it can be safely
concluded in the present case that there is a
singular failure by the legislature to make a
distinction between purchasing dealers who
have bona fide transacted with the selling
dealer by taking all precautions as required
by the DVAT Act and those that have not.
Therefore, there was need to restrict the
denial of ITC only to the selling dealers who
had failed to deposit the tax collected by
them and not punish bona fide purchasing
dealers. The latter cannot be expected to do
the impossible. It is trite that a law that is not
capable of honest compliance will fail in
achieving its objective. If it seeks to visit
disobedience
with
disproportionate
consequences to a bona fide purchasing
dealer, it will become vulnerable to
invalidation on the touchstone of Article 14
of the Constitution.

41. The Court respectfully concurs
with the above analysis and holds that in the
present case, the purchasing dealer is being
asked to do the impossible, i.e. to anticipate
the selling dealer who will not deposit with
the Government the tax collected by him
from those purchasing dealer and therefore
avoid transacting with such selling dealers.
Alternatively, what Section 9 (2) (g) of the
DVAT Act requires the purchasing dealer to
do is that after transacting with the selling
dealer, somehow ensure that the selling
dealer does in fact deposit the tax collected
from the purchasing dealer and if the selling
dealer fails to do so, undergo the risk of
5 All. M/S Rajshi Processors Raebareli Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1473
being denied the ITC. Indeed Section 9 (2)
(g) of the DVAT Act places an onerous
burden on a bonafide purchasing dealer."

14. The Delhi High Court has further
held in Para no. 46.06 of the aforesaid
judgment
as
under:
"46.6 In the present case, the conditions
imposed for the grant of ITC are spelt out in
Sections 9 (1) and (2) of the DVAT Act and
have been adverted to earlier. The claim of
the purchasing dealer in the present case is
not that it should be granted that ITC de hors
the conditions. Their positive case is that
each of them, as a purchasing dealer, has
complied the conditions as stipulated in
Section 9 and therefore, cannot be denied
ITC because only selling dealer had failed to
fulfil the conditions thereunder. More
importantly, the Court finds that there is no
provision in the MVAT Act similar to
Section 40A of the DVAT Act. Section 40A
of the DVAT Act takes care of a situation
where the selling dealer and the purchasing
dealer act in collusion with a view to
defrauding the Revenue. In fact, the
operative directions in Mahalaxmi Cotton
Ginning Pressing and Oil Industries (supra)
indicate that such a measure was suggested
by the State Government itself to go after
defaulters, i.e. selling dealers failing to
actually pay the tax. The Department there
undertook to upload on its website the
details of the defaulting dealers. It was
further undertaken that once there was a
final recovery of the tax from the selling
dealer, refund would be granted to the
purchasing dealer."

15. Per contra, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel has opposed the
writ petition and he has submitted that it is
not a case where the I.T.C. benefit has
been declined to the petitioner and
subsequently the liabilities have been
imposed on him merely because the
registration
of
supplier
firms
was
cancelled
subsequently.
The
orders
against the petitioner have been passed for
the reason that he had shown false inward
supply from non-existent and bogus firms
and he has claimed I.T.C. fraudulently
without any actual inward supplies.

16. I have considered the aforesaid
facts and circumstances of the case and the
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties.

17. Section 16 of the GST Act
provides the eligibility conditions for
taking input tax credit and Sub Section
2(b) provides that no registered person
shall be entitled to the credit of any input
tax in respect of any supply of goods
unless he has received the goods.
"Received the goods means the person
claiming input tax credit must have
actually received the goods". Where a
person
merely
produces
document,
mentioned in Rule 36 regarding receipt of
goods, he has actually not received any
goods and it is established that the
transaction of goods was merely a paper
transaction, without any actual supply of
goods, the person will not be entitled to get
the benefit of input tax credit in view of
the
provision
contained
in
Section
16(2)(b) of the GST Act, 2017.

18. Undisputedly, the petitioner had
fulfilled the requirements and, therefore, the
input tax credit was claimed and was granted
to him. However, when an enquiry was
conducted by the Special Investigation
Branch subsequently, it came to light that
the firms from which the petitioner claimed
to have received inward supplies, were nonexistent and bogus. Neither the firms were
found on the addresses, claimed by them,
1474 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
nor was any godown or other premises of
those firms could found. It appears that the
firms were existing on paper only.

19. Although, the registration of the
firms existed when the petitioner claimed to
have
obtained
inward
supplies,
the
investigation revealed that the firm itself
does not exist. In case, GSTIN registration
has been obtained in the name of any nonexistent firm. It being a non-existent firm,
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 is bound to give I.T.C.
benefit to the petitioner, even though it has
been revealed later on the firm was nonexistent and it could not have made any
actual supplies.

20.

The
findings
of
Special
Investigation Branch reveal that inward
supplies have been received from nonexistent firm to take advantage of I.T.C.,
which amounts to committing fraud against
the department and the public exchequer.

21. It is settled law that fraud vitiates
even the most solemn proceedings and the
mere fact that the I.T.C. benefit had earlier
been granted to the petitioner merely
because the firms were registered, would not
create any estoppel against the authority
taking appropriate action for claiming
refund of the benefit wrongly availed by the
petitioner on the ground of receiving inward
supplies from non-existent firms.

22. The contention that no supplies had
been received from the non-existent firms
also finds support from the fact that the
goods receipts issued by M/s Goyal Goods
Carry Corporation, were on different
formats. The GSTIN mentioned in the
transport Bilties was found to be not valid.
The phone number mentioned in the Bilties,
was also not of any transport company and
it was being used by some lady at Kasganj.

23. The aforesaid findings recorded by
the Special Investigation Branch give rise to
sufficient material to support the order
passed by the adjudicating authority against
the petitioner for recovery of the amount
claimed by him as input tax credit and for
imposing penalty and liability to pay interest
thereon. The appellate authority has passed
the impugned order after taking into
consideration the facts and circumstances of
the case and the material available on
record.

24. There appears no illegality in the
impugned orders. The writ petition lacks
merit and the same is hereby dismissed.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1474
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH, J.

Writ Tax No. 799 of 2024

Rahul Sachan ...Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rahul Agarwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Gaurav Mahajan

Civil Law - Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections
148, 148 A(b) & 148 A(d) - Show cause
notice under Section 148 A(b) of the Act-
proposing
to
initiate
reassessment
proceedings- Explanation rejected-