[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]  CA Bimal Jain [@BimalGST](/creator/twitter/BimalGST) on x 133.5K followers Created: 2025-07-10 07:00:57 UTC 🔥📛 HC: Dismisses Consultant's writ challenging Rs. XXX crores penalty reckoning Section 122(1A) from SCN date ➡️ X. Assessee Implicated in ITC Fraud via Creation of Fake Firms The Delhi High Court found prima facie evidence that the Assessee, a GST consultant, was involved in orchestrating fraudulent transactions by creating and operating XX fake firms in collaboration with Mr. Sanjay Sehgal. This was allegedly done to fraudulently avail and transfer Input Tax Credit (ITC). ➡️ X. Section 122(1A) Applicability Upheld Despite Absence in SCN Heading Although the Show Cause Notice (SCN) was formally issued under Section 122(3)(a), (d), and (e), the Court ruled that Section 122(1A) was validly invoked based on the detailed content and allegations within the SCN. The HC emphasized that the substantive nature and facts of the allegations justify the application of Section 122(1A), despite it not being explicitly cited. ➡️ X. Assessee’s Involvement Substantiated by Investigation & Admission The Court relied on recorded statements and the Assessee’s own admission that he received a commission for facilitating the creation of fake firms. The explanation that he was paid only Rs. XXXXX was rejected given the scale of the fraud, indicating the Assessee’s active and knowing participation in fraudulent ITC transactions. ➡️ X. No Relief for Procedural Non-Compliance and Failure to Rebut Allegations The Assessee’s failure to respond to critical allegations and procedural arguments against the retrospective application of Section 122(1A) were dismissed. The HC held that the date of the SCN governs applicability and that the amended provision rightly covers individuals facilitating GST fraud. ➡️ X. Writ Jurisdiction Denied; Appeal Remedy Directed Citing its earlier judgment in Mukesh Kumar Garg, the Court refused to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226, noting that the appropriate remedy is through statutory appeal, which it allowed despite expired limitation, thereby directing the Assessee to file an appeal. ✔️ Delhi HC - Bhupender Kumar v/s Additional Commissioner Adjudication Cgst Delhi North & Ors [W.P.(C) 9141/2025 & CM APPL. 38815/2025] #GST #GSTUpdate #GSTCaseUpdate #AdvBimalJain #GSTwithBimalJain #a2ztaxcorpllp #GSTUpdate #GSTcaseLaw XXX engagements  **Related Topics** [gst](/topic/gst) [$itcbo](/topic/$itcbo) [Post Link](https://x.com/BimalGST/status/1943203773649735699)
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
CA Bimal Jain @BimalGST on x 133.5K followers
Created: 2025-07-10 07:00:57 UTC
🔥📛 HC: Dismisses Consultant's writ challenging Rs. XXX crores penalty reckoning Section 122(1A) from SCN date
➡️ X. Assessee Implicated in ITC Fraud via Creation of Fake Firms The Delhi High Court found prima facie evidence that the Assessee, a GST consultant, was involved in orchestrating fraudulent transactions by creating and operating XX fake firms in collaboration with Mr. Sanjay Sehgal. This was allegedly done to fraudulently avail and transfer Input Tax Credit (ITC).
➡️ X. Section 122(1A) Applicability Upheld Despite Absence in SCN Heading Although the Show Cause Notice (SCN) was formally issued under Section 122(3)(a), (d), and (e), the Court ruled that Section 122(1A) was validly invoked based on the detailed content and allegations within the SCN. The HC emphasized that the substantive nature and facts of the allegations justify the application of Section 122(1A), despite it not being explicitly cited.
➡️ X. Assessee’s Involvement Substantiated by Investigation & Admission The Court relied on recorded statements and the Assessee’s own admission that he received a commission for facilitating the creation of fake firms. The explanation that he was paid only Rs. XXXXX was rejected given the scale of the fraud, indicating the Assessee’s active and knowing participation in fraudulent ITC transactions.
➡️ X. No Relief for Procedural Non-Compliance and Failure to Rebut Allegations The Assessee’s failure to respond to critical allegations and procedural arguments against the retrospective application of Section 122(1A) were dismissed. The HC held that the date of the SCN governs applicability and that the amended provision rightly covers individuals facilitating GST fraud.
➡️ X. Writ Jurisdiction Denied; Appeal Remedy Directed Citing its earlier judgment in Mukesh Kumar Garg, the Court refused to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226, noting that the appropriate remedy is through statutory appeal, which it allowed despite expired limitation, thereby directing the Assessee to file an appeal.
✔️ Delhi HC - Bhupender Kumar v/s Additional Commissioner Adjudication Cgst Delhi North & Ors [W.P.(C) 9141/2025 & CM APPL. 38815/2025]
#GST #GSTUpdate #GSTCaseUpdate #AdvBimalJain #GSTwithBimalJain #a2ztaxcorpllp #GSTUpdate #GSTcaseLaw
XXX engagements
