M/S. Varun Rocks vs. The Superintendent Of Central Tax And Central Excise

M/S GANAPATHI ENTERPRISES, (LEGAL NAME LALIT KURADA) GSTIN 29AOWPL8365DLZ7, PROPERTY NO.2, LAYOUT, 9TH B CROSS, MALAGALA, NAGARABHAVI, 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE (RESPONDENT N0.8 IS A NON EXISTING ENTITY AND, PRESENTLY UNDER SUSPENSION W.E.F. 19.01.2024 AS PER THE LETTER IN OC NO.83/2024. DATED 29,02.2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.) RAMAKRISHNA ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the Order in Original No.27/2025-26-GST, dated 11,04.2025 and also the consequent demand raised in Form GST DRC-07 bearing Reference No.ZD370425014428E, dated 15.04.2025 issued by the also another consequent Notice dated 26.08.2025 1st Respondent and issued by the 5th Respondent as void, illegal, arbitrary, without juri iction and without authority of law and violation of the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19(l)(g) and 21 of the constitution of India and contrary to the CGST Act, 2017 and IGST Act, 2017 and consequently set- aside the same and to pass lA NO; 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.Y N ANJANEYACHARYULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 2. 0 3 The Court made the following Order; (Per Hon’ble Sn Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner herein, being aggrieved by the Order-in-original NO.27/2025-26-GST, dated 11.04.2025, issued by the 1®' respondent and the consequential demand notice, dated 15.04.2025, has approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition. The order of assessment has been passed on the ground that the input tax credit availed by the petitioner on the basis of purchases from M/s. Ganapathi Enterprises is impermissible as M/s. Ganapathi Enterprises is not a genuine firm and had been set up only for the purposes of giving ineligible input tax credit.

The petitioner assails the said order on the ground that M/s. Ganapathi Enterprises is a genuine firm with which the petitioner had conducted business and the registration of M/s. Ganapathi Enterprises was still valid at that the time of the transaction between the petitioner and M/s. Ganapathi Enterprises. The petitioner also assailed the Order on the ground that under Section 74 of the Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017[for short ‘the GST Act”] could not have been applied to the case as there is no mention of fraud, willful suppression or the willful misleading by the petitioner.

The aforesaid issues or questions of facts which would best be resolved by the appellant authority, as the appellant authority would still remain a fact finding authority.

In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the appellant authority within a period of three weeks. In the event of the petitioner approaching the appellate authority within three weeks, the said appeal would be taken up without going to the question of limitation. There shall be no order as to costs. 5. 4 4 As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //// SECTION OFFICER To, Superintendent of Central Tax and Central Excise, Ibrahimpatnam Amaravathi COST Divisional Office, Central Revenue

One CC to SRI Y N ANJANEYACHARYULU Advocate [OPUC] FOR COMMERCIAL TAX High Court of Andhra Revenue State of Andhra Pradesh, GSTIN

M/s

Two CCS to GP Pradesh [OUT] CC to ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA, High Court

One of Andhra Pradesh [OPUC]

Two CD Copies