Facts of the CaseThe complainant department filed Complaint No. GST/01/2018 before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli, alleging commission of offences under Section 69 read with Section 132 of the HPGST/CGST Act, 2017 and Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017 against the petitioners, who were partners of M/s G.M. Powertech.It was alleged that the firm had availed fraudulent input tax credit (ITC) during the financial years 2017–18 and 2018–19 by declaring inward supplies from fictitious and non-existent firms based in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh. The GST portal verification revealed that goods were purportedly transported in fake or non-existent vehicles, including two-wheelers and cars incapable of carrying heavy consignments. Investigation showed that suppliers mentioned in invoices did not exist at the given addresses. Fraudulent ITC amounting to substantial sums was alleged.The learned Trial Court, upon finding sufficient material, summoned the accused and fixed the matter for recording pre-charge evidence.Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the High Court seeking quashing of the complaint and subsequent proceedings. They contended that the GST Acts were silent regarding investigation and filing of complaint, that departmental officers exercised unbridled powers, that Sections 69 and 132 were arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, and that the trial court erred in proceeding as a warrant case and ordering pre-charge evidence.The principal questions before the High Court were:Whether the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure apply to investigation and trial under the GST Acts.Whether the complaint and proceedings were liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.Whether the trial court erred in treating the matter as a warrant case and directing pre-charge evidence.Court Observations and DecisionThe High Court examined the law relating to quashing of criminal proceedings and reiterated the principles governing exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as laid down by the Supreme Court. It observed that quashing is permissible only in limited circumstances such as absence of prima facie offence, legal bar to proceedings, or manifest abuse of process.On applicability of Cr.P.C., the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India, holding that by virtue of Sections 4(2) and 5 Cr.P.C., the provisions of the Code apply to offences under special statutes unless expressly excluded. It further noted that GST Acts are not a complete code in respect of search, seizure, arrest and procedure, and therefore Cr.P.C. provisions apply in the absence of any contrary provision.The Court rejected the contention that the Act was silent regarding investigation and filing of complaint. It held that Cr.P.C. governs such procedure unless excluded.Regarding the trial as a warrant case, the Court observed that Section 132 provides punishment up to five years’ imprisonment. Since a warrant case under Section 2(x) Cr.P.C. includes offences punishable with imprisonment exceeding two years, the trial court was correct in proceeding as a warrant case. Under Section 244 Cr.P.C., in cases instituted otherwise than on a police report, the Magistrate is required to record prosecution evidence after appearance of the accused. Therefore, ordering pre-charge evidence was legally justified.On the contention that investigation was improperly conducted, the Court held that while exercising inherent jurisdiction, it only examines whether a prima facie case exists and does not evaluate the sufficiency or credibility of evidence. The verification conducted by officials, who found that suppliers did not exist at the given addresses, was sufficient at the prima facie stage. Issues relating to quality of investigation are matters for trial.The Court also held that the decision in Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) did not assist the petitioners, as it does not render departmental investigation invalid per se.Finding no ground falling within the parameters for quashing, the High Court dismissed the petition. It clarified that its observations were confined to disposal of the petition and would not affect the merits of the trial.Cases ReferredB.N. John v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 7, Supreme Court of India.State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Supreme Court of India.Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 185, Supreme Court of India.Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India, (2025) 150 GSTR 121, Supreme Court of India.Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan, (1994) 3 SCC 440, Supreme Court of India.A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak, (1984) 2 SCC 500, Supreme Court of India.Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi), AIR 2020 SC 4794, Supreme Court of India. 

BACKGROUNDThe petitioner had obtained commercial vehicle rental/hiring services and paid the invoices along with GST. The tax paid, however, did not appear in the recipient's GSTR-2A because the supplier had not filed GSTR-01. Consequently, the petitioner was unable to utilise the corresponding ITC.Representations were made to the tax authorities requesting action against the supplier for collecting GST without depositing it with the Government. The authorities took the position that the supplier fell within the Central GST jurisdiction and therefore action could not be initiated by the State authorities.COURT OBSERVATIONThe Court held that the stand of the official respondents was contrary to Section 76(1) and (2) of the Jharkhand GST Act. The provision applies to “every person” who collects an amount representing GST and does not pay it to the Government, including a person who is not registered under the JGST Act.The Court further held that the authorities could not refuse action merely because the supplier was registered under the Central GST authorities. The State authorities were under a duty to initiate proceedings under Section 76(2). The Court also rejected the plea of res judicata because the earlier writ petition had not resulted in adjudication on merits.FINAL VERDICTThe writ petition was allowed with costs of ₹1,00,000/- payable by the supplier to the petitioner. The official respondents were directed to initiate proceedings under Section 76 of the Jharkhand GST Act against the supplier for collecting tax and not crediting it to the State Government.

BackgroundThe petitioner had purchased recharge coupons against seven tax invoices on which CGST and SGST were charged. The tax component shown in the invoices was paid through the banking channel by RTGS. During scrutiny, a discrepancy was noticed between the ITC claimed and the credit appearing in GSTR-2A. The petitioner explained that the disputed ITC related to the said invoices and that the payments had been made through RTGS.A show-cause notice under Section 73 was thereafter issued alleging wrongful availment of ITC under Section 16(2)(c) on the ground that the tax had not been deposited with the Government. The petitioner contended that proceedings should instead be initiated against the selling dealer, as the purchaser had no control over the seller’s filing of returns or deposit of tax. An order was passed requiring reversal/deposit of the ITC amount, along with penalty and interest, and the appeal against the order was dismissed.Court ObservationThe Court found that the purchase through the seven bills and charging of CGST and SGST were not in dispute, and the GST charged under the invoices had been paid through the banking channel by RTGS. The record also showed that proceedings had been initiated against the selling dealer for non-discharge of its duties.The Court observed that the purchasing dealer cannot compel the selling dealer either to deposit the tax collected with the Government treasury or to file the return within the stipulated time. Therefore, a purchasing dealer who has diligently discharged its own obligations cannot be left at the mercy of the selling dealer. The assessing authority ought to have considered the fact that the purchases were supported by tax invoices, payments were made through banking channels, and action had already been taken against the selling dealer.The Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Suncraft Energy and the Madras High Court’s decision in D.Y. Beathel Enterprises, both of which were considered in the context of action against the supplier where tax had been paid by the purchaser but the supplier failed to discharge its obligations.Final VerdictThe Court held that the matter required reconsideration and consequently found that the impugned orders could not be sustained in law. The orders were therefore quashed.The writ petition was allowed and the matter was remanded to the concerned respondent for fresh adjudication by passing a reasoned and speaking order, after hearing all stakeholders, within two months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order.Cases Referred by CourtAssistant Commissioner of State Tax v. Suncraft Energy Pvt. Ltd. — Supreme Court — 2023.D.Y. Beathel Enterprises v. State Tax Officer (Data Cell), Tirunelveli — Madras High Court — 2022. 

BACKGROUNDThe Department conducted a detailed investigation and found that the petitioner and his son had incorporated or established 28 firms which, in collusion with various other traders, facilitated fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit without any actual supply of goods or services. One of the firms — a sole proprietary concern of the petitioner — was identified as part of this network. The total fake ITC availed by entities controlled by the petitioner's son was alleged to be more than Rs.115 crores. After investigation, analysis of documents, and recording of statements of associated persons, a Show Cause Notice dated 31.07.2024 was issued to several companies and individuals including the petitioner. A detailed Order-in-Original was passed on 30.01.2025 confirming demands and imposing penalties on the petitioner and multiple connected firms and individuals. Personal hearing was granted and the petitioner filed a reply. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. Notably, the petitioner's son had already filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority against the very same impugned order. CRUCIAL FACTSThe petitioner challenged the impugned order on the ground that he was not a taxable person under Section 74 read with Section 122(1) of the CGST Act, being neither the authorized signatory nor the operator of the main firm which availed the ITC — that firm being run by his son. He further argued that at best, under Section 122(3), the maximum penalty imposable on him was Rs.25,000/-. He also argued that under Section 75(13) of the CGST Act, once penalty is imposed under Section 73 or 74, no further penalty for the same act can be imposed under any other provision of the CGST Act. The Revenue contended that the petitioner's own sole proprietary concern was part of the fake firm network, and that staff of the son had admitted to irregularities committed by both father and son. The Revenue also urged that the impugned order being an appealable order under Section 107, the writ petition was not maintainable — particularly given that one co-noticee (the son) had already availed of the appellate remedy against the same order.  COURT OBSERVATIONS (Verbatim — Crucial)On misuse of ITC and the GST regime:"It is observed by this Court in a large number of writ petitions that this facility under Section 16 of the CGST Act has been misused by various individuals, firms, entities and companies to avail of ITC even when the output tax is not deposited or when the entities or individuals who had to deposit the output tax are themselves found to be not existent. Such misuse, if permitted to continue, would create an enormous dent in the GST regime itself."On seriousness of allegations:"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 non-existent firms for the sake of enabling fraudulent availment of the ITC."On writ jurisdiction and factual disputes:"The Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, cannot adjudicate upon or ascertain the factual aspects pertaining to what was the role played by the Petitioner, whether the penalty imposed is justified or not, whether the same requires to be reduced proportionately in terms of the invoices raised by the Petitioner under his firm or whether penalty is liable to be imposed under Section 122(1) and Section 122(3) of the CGST Act."On multiplicity of proceedings:"The persons, who are involved in such transactions, cannot be allowed to try different remedies before different forums, inasmuch as the same would also result in multiplicity of litigation and could also lead to contradictory findings of different Forums, Tribunals and Courts."On when writ jurisdiction is available:"Writ jurisdiction is not barred in such cases, especially if there is any arbitrary action by the Department or the order itself is without jurisdiction or there is non-compliance of principles of natural justice. In the present case, none of the three grounds are made out as the SCN and the impugned order have been passed by the appropriate authority which has jurisdiction. Secondly, the Petitioner had been awarded an opportunity to file a reply and had also been afforded a hearing."On clean hands doctrine:"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 only in case of persons who come with clean hands and not in favour of the persons who present twisted facts or misrepresent the true and correct picture on record." FINAL VERDICTThe writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Bar Association within four weeks. The petitioner is at liberty to urge all issues in an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act.👎 THUMBS DOWN (Against Assessee — Dismissed with costs)

BACKGROUND & FACTSShrinivasa Realcon Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner/developer) entered into an Agreement of Development dated 07.01.2022 (also referred to as 07.04.2022 in the order) with a landowner for development of Plot No. 2 admeasuring 8,000 sq. ft., Mouza Lendra, into a multi-storied complex. The consideration under the agreement was Rs. 7 crores and two apartments to the landowner. The petitioner was granted the right to develop the property by utilizing its present FSI or any increases thereof. No TDR or FSI was purchased by the owner or by the petitioner from any external person or entity in execution of this agreement.The department issued a Show Cause Notice dated 24.07.2024 demanding GST on the aforesaid transaction, followed by a second Show Cause Notice dated 14.08.2024, claiming GST under Entry 5B of the Notification dated 28.06.2017 as amended by Notification dated 29.03.2019. The department sought to rely on Clause 18 of the Development Agreement — which merely required the landowner to execute a deed of declaration under Section 2 of the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970, and execute apartment deeds in favour of individual buyers nominated by the developer — to contend that a "transfer" was involved attracting Entry 5B. An order dated 10.12.2024 was also passed pursuant to the show cause notices. The petitioner challenged both the show cause notices and the consequent order before the High Court. COURT OBSERVATIONS (Verbatim)Para 4: "A perusal of the language of entry 5B, above would indicate, that it relates to services which can be said to be supplied by any person by way of transfer of development rights or Floor Space Index (FSI) [including additional FSI] for construction of a project by a promoter. The expression 'transfer of development rights' read in conjunction with 'FSI' as indicated in entry 5B, would only relate to a TDR (Transferable Development Rights) as contemplated by clause 11.2.2 under the regulations for grant of TDR in the Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations for the State of Maharashtra, clause 11.2.1 of which defines transferable development rights, to mean compensation in the form of Floor Space Index (FSI) or development rights, which shall entitle the owner for construction of built up area subject to the provisions in the said regulations. It therefore, follows, that the TDR / FSI as contemplated by entry 5B, cannot be related, to the rights which a developer derives from the owner under the agreement of development for constructing the building for the owners, in lieu of the owner agreeing to permit the developer to transfer certain built up units for consideration to be appropriated by the developer."Para 5: "In the instant case, the agreement dated 07.4.2022 (page 27) is an agreement of development entered into between the petitioner and the land owner, in terms of which, the petitioner, has been granted right to develop the property in question by utilizing its present FSI or any increases thereof. Mr. Naik, learned Senior Counsel, upon instructions, submits, that in the execution of the agreement dated 07.4.2022 no TDR or FSI has been purchased by the owner or for that matter by the petitioner from any person / entity whomsoever."Para 6: "Clause 18 relied upon by Mr. Nalamwar, learned counsel for the respondents merely indicates, that the owners shall sign and execute a deed of declaration under Section 2 of the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970, submitting the entire scheme to the provisions of the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act and the execution of the apartment deeds in favour of each individual buyers to the nominees of the developers. It is, therefore, apparent, that the transaction as contemplated in terms of the agreement dated 07.4.2022 does not fall within entry 5B of the Notification dated 28.6.2017, as it stand amended by the Notification dated 29.3.2019, in view of which, neither the show cause notice dated 14.08.2023 (page 123) nor the consequent order dated 10.12.2024 (page 137), can be sustained and are hereby quashed and set aside." FINAL VERDICTWrit petition allowed. The Development Agreement dated 07.04.2022 does not involve any TDR/FSI as contemplated under Entry 5B of the GST Notification. Both the show cause notices and the consequent order are quashed and set aside. GST under Entry 5B is not leviable on the transaction. 👍