Oral Order

A.S. Supehia, J.

1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the show-cause notice dated 28.01.2025 to the extent of proposed tax demand along with penalty and interest under section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (for short "CGST Act") and the Order-in-Original dated 19.12.2025.

2. At the outset, when this Court had confronted learned advocate Mr.Kassowal about the availability of alternate remedy challenging the Order-in-Original, he has chosen to address the matter on merits, and has invited the order on merits. Hence, we are constrained to deal with the contentions raised by him before this Court.

3. The case of the petitioner, in nutshell, as mentioned in the averments made in the writ petition as well as on the submissions, is that since the respondents have not undertaken the investigation in appropriate manner, the impugned order is required to be quashed.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Kassowal has submitted that the petitioner has no connection with M/s. Mahalaxmi Transport and further while referring to the contents of the show-cause notice, it is submitted that the entire transactions as well as preparation of Invoices and E-way Bills of the goods were undertaken by Shri Dilshad Alam. He has further invited attention of this Court to the averments made in the writ petition regarding Relied Upon Documents (RUDs), which were not provided in the notice and thereafter, on 09.07.2025, the petitioner sought adjournment on hearing and specifically requested RUD Nos.22 and 23 from respondent No.3 that these documents were not furnished. It is urged by him that considering such aspects, the present writ petition may be allowed.

5. Learned Standing Counsel Mr.Khanchandani appearing for the respondents has submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable since the petitioner has efficacious remedy of filing an appeal under section 107 of the CGST Act before the appellate authority as the petitioner has raised all the factual contentions, which can be taken care of by the appellate authority.

6. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and also perused the documents, as pointed out by them.

7. At the outset, we had already clarified to learned advocate Mr.Kassowal appearing for the petitioner with regard to alternate remedy and if he wants to avail the same, and he could do so however, he has submitted that since the petitioner is not having money for pre-deposit, he would be inviting order of this Court on merits.

8. At this stage, from the pleadings and factual aspects as recorded by the respondent authorities, it is noticed that the petitioner, who is proprietor of M/s.Maa Logistics Transport Company, has categorically in his statement recorded on 05.07.2024 has admitted thus:

          "2.20 Further, statement of Shri Neeraj Tiwari was also recorded on 05.07.2024 (RUD-17) wherein the letter received from Shri Dilshad Alam and above mentioned details (Para 2.16) of E-way. Bills have been perused by him. On being asked about Shri Dilshad Alam, he stated that Shri Dilshad Alam used to prepare the Invoices & E-way Bills of the goods to be transported from Halol, Gujarat to Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh and other places in Uttar Pradesh in the name of said 08 fake firms and same were sent to Shri Satish Mishra. Thereafter the same were provided to the drivers for facilitator transportation and same were collected from the drivers at Kanpur by Shri Dilshad Alam. Further, he also stated that the payment of transportation was made by Shri Dilshad Alam to Drivers in Cash. Further, on being asked about the above stated E-way Bills (as mentioned in Para 2.19), he stated that he has no information about these transactions. Further, Shri Neeraj Tiwari had categorically denied that he is the owner of M/s. Mahalaxmi Transport and stated that he is the owner of M/s. Maa Logistics Transport Company, Kanpur. He further stated that he used to sent his vehicle from Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh to Halo, Gujarat for transportation and for return transportation from Halol, Gujarat to Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh of the same he was availing services of Shri Satish Mishra for the same purpose he used to keep his LR Book of M/s. Maa Logistics Transport Company with Shri Satish Mishra.

          2.21 Further, the above statement dated 05.07.2024 of Shri Neeraj Tiwari was also perused by both Shri Satish Mishra while recording of his statement dated 18.07.2024 (RUD-18) & Shri Arun Kumar while recording of his statement dated 18.07.2024 (RUD-19), wherein they both have stated that Shri Neeraj Tiwari is the sole owner of both the firms namely M/s. Mahalaxmi Transport & M/s. Maa Logistics Transport Company. They further stated that they were employees of Shri Neeraj Tiwari and Shri Neeraj Tiwari used to give all the directions related to business of M/s. Mahalaxmi Transport. They further stated that, they used to execute/supervise the work which was being done by M/ s. Mahalaxmi Transport on the directions of Shri Neeraj Tiwari. They further stated that the work which has been done by them at M/s. Mahalaxmi Transport was on the sole directions of Shri Neeraj Tiwari and same has been explained by them in their previously recorded statements dated 10.07.2020 and 21.07.2020."

9. The detailed investigation was undertaken and it was found by the respondent authority that Shri Dilshad Alam has created 08 firms on behest of the present petitioner, who is the owner of M/ s.Mahalakshmi Transport, for the sole purpose of clandestinely removal of goods from various Halol based firms.

10. The adjudicating authority after considering the applicability of Section 74 of the CGST Act has opined that M/s.Mahalaxmi Transport was required to register under the GSTN and above 05 firms were required to self-assess the taxes payable in terms of Section 59 of the CGST Act and were also required to self-assess eligibility of Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed by them as per provisions of section 16 and 17 of the CGST Act however, the said firms did not self-assess eligibility of ITC availed by them as per the provisions of sections 16 and 17 of the CGST Act with intention to evade tax. It was further recorded that all these firms had suppressed the material facts from the department, by resorting to wilful mis-statement and suppression of the facts, which is evident from the record. All these transgressions came to the notice of department only when the search was conducted, and proceedings were initiated under the CGST Act.

11. The adjudicating authority, after considering the scrutiny of information and documents in detail on record, has ultimately found various persons and the companies including the petitioner of supplying and transporting the goods in a clandestine manner and ultimately, the impugned order has been passed considering the defense of the petitioner.

12. Since the petitioner has alternate efficacious remedy of pointing out the facts and also the violation of any provisions of the Act, if any, before the appellate authority, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Hence, the same is hereby rejected.