1. Home

SGST High Court Cases

GST – Scope of term "taxable person" under Section 122(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Fraud, bogus firms, Circular trading - The investigation revealed that petitioner had created numerous non-existent or "bogus" firms to fraudulently avail of Input Tax Credit without any actual supply of goods or services. These firms were involved in circular trading and issuing of bogus invoices to enable the fraudulent availment and encashment of ITC - Whether the petitioner, as a Director or partner of the fraudulent firms, can be held liable as a "taxable person" under Section 122 of the CGST Act for the imposition of penalties – HELD - The ‘taxable person’, so long as it is an identified real person/entity it would be the said person/entity itself. However, in the case of fake, non-existent and fraudulent firms, who do not have any real persons as partners or proprietors or even any incorporation, the ‘taxable person’ would be the person who has got such firms created and used the same for availment of ITC. If the submissions of petitioner is accepted, then in the case of fake firms or non-existent firms, there would be no liability cast upon anybody despite fraudulently cheating the Exchequer, as is the position in the present case - The submission that under Section 122 of the CGST Act, it is only the ‘taxable person’ against whom a penalty can be raised, would not give benefit to the Petitioner who is clearly alleged to be the mastermind of the entire maze of transactions resulting in fraudulent availment of crore of rupees of ITC - In the case of fake, non-existent, and fraudulent firms, the "taxable person" would be the person who has got such firms created and used them for the fraudulent availment of ITC, even if they are not officially listed as partners or proprietors. The petitioner's active involvement in creating and operating these bogus firms, as evidenced by the investigation, makes him liable as a "taxable person" under the CGST Act - the writ petition is dismissed - Whether the petitioner's right to cross-examination of witnesses was violated by the denial of his request for the same – HELD - The right to cross-examination is not an absolute or unfettered right, and its provision depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The petitioner had ample opportunity to seek cross-examination during the earlier proceedings, which he did not avail of. Further, the adjudicating authority had provided detailed reasons for rejecting the request for cross-examination, considering the nature of the documentary evidence and the provisions of the CGST Act. The mere rejection of the request for cross-examination, without a showing of substantial prejudice, is not a sufficient ground to bypass the statutory appellate remedy.
Download File
show more Judgements  

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Kasi Viswanathan V

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GSTR-9 & GSTR-9C of FY24-25
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?