M/S Universal Enterprises v. Union Of India And Another

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 16; GST statutory provision - Section 20; GST statutory provision - Section 50; GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 122

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 25.04.2023 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Central GST, Ghaziabad whereby and whereunder the Input Tax Credit availed and further utilized by the petitioner against invoices issued without actual receipt of goods has been held to be inadmissible in terms of Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 36 of CGST rules, 2017 and the demand and recovery of input tax credit amounting to Rs. 15,64,58,361 (IGST 8,04,90,895/- +CGST Rs/ 3,79,83,733/- + SGST Rs. 3,79,83,733/-) availed and utilized on the basis of fake invoices issued by non existent suppliers without concomitant goods during the period from October 2017 to March 2022 under Section 74 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and UPGST Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017, from the petitioner along with interest under Section 50 of the…
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

2. The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 25.04.2023 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Central GST, Ghaziabad whereby and whereunder the Input Tax Credit availed and further utilized by the petitioner against invoices issued without actual receipt of goods has been held to be inadmissible in terms of Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 36 of CGST rules, 2017 and the demand and recovery of input tax credit amounting to Rs. 15,64,58,361 (IGST 8,04,90,895/- +CGST Rs/ 3,79,83,733/- + SGST Rs. 3,79,83,733/-) availed and utilized on the basis of fake invoices issued by non existent suppliers without concomitant goods during the period from October 2017 to March 2022 under Section 74 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and UPGST Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017, from the petitioner along with interest under Section 50 of the CGST Act 2017 and UPGST Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017 has been confirmed. At the same time penalty has been imposed on the non existent suppliers under Section 122 (1)(ii) and Section 122 (1)(vii) of the CGST Act, 2017 for issuing tax invoices without actual supply of goods or services or both.

2017 to March, 2022. The respondents were of the view that 34 suppliers of the petitioner were found suspicious and investigations were made. The petitioner was issued a Show Cause Notice on 27.07.2022 alleging that the petitioner had availed ITC to the tune of Rs. 15,64,58,361/- on the basis of invoices issued by non existent firms and why the same be not recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner filed detailed reply to the Show Cause and requested for cross examination of the persons on whose version the Department made out a case against the petitioner but the same was not allowed. It is further alleged that all principles of natural justice were sacrificed. It is vehemently argued that the petitioner had rightly claimed the Input Tax Credit on the basis of the invoices issued by the Suppliers. The presumption of the respondents that the suppliers are non existent and fictitious is without any basis and is liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed upon the decisions reported in 2022 (59) GSTL 45 (All), 2023 (71) GSTL 141 (Chhatisgarh), 2019 (367) ELT 614 (Bom.), 2022 (57) GSTL 374 (Pat), Writ Petition (C) 3820 of 2023 (Anuj Gupta vs. Commissioner of Central Tax GST Delhi East) and connected matters decided on May, 2, 2023, 2021 (44) GSTL 228 (Telangana); 2022 (63) GSTL 305 (Pat.) and 2023 (76) GSTL 49 (2023) (8) Central 10 (All).

4. Sri Krishna Agarwal, learned counsel for the Revenue in opposition to the writ petition submits that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity warranting its setting aside in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India especially in view of an alternative remedy available to the petitioner to assail the impugned order in Appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017.

7. The Apex Court recently in the case of State of Karnataka vs. M/s Ecom Gill Coffee Trading (Civil Appeal No. 230 of 2023 (arising from SLP Civil No. 2572 of 2022) while dealing with similar issue as raised in the instant writ petition observed that ITC can be claimed only on genuine transactions of sale and purchase. For claiming ITC, genuineness of the transaction and actual physical movement of the goods are the sine qua non and the aforesaid can be proved only by furnishing the name and address of the selling dealer, details of the vehicle which has delivered the goods, payment of freight charges, acknowledgement of taking delivery of goods, tax invoices and payment particulars etc. The purchasing dealers have to prove the actual physical movement of the goods, alleged to have been purchased from the respective dealers. If the purchasing dealer/s fails/fail to establish and prove the said important aspect of physical movement of the goods alleged to have been purchased by it/them from the concerned dealers and on which the ITC have been claimed, the Assessing Officer is absolutely justified in rejecting such ITC claim.

10. In such view of the matter the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

1. Heard Shri A.P. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Krishna Agarwal, learned counsel for revenue and Shri Om Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the Union of India.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment does not separately label the respondent’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

6. From the perusal of the impugned order we find that the Assessing Authority has passed a detailed order considering the objections/reply of the petitioner filed to the Show Cause and has returned the finding that the petitioner has availed the ITC and further utilized the same against tax invoices issued by suppliers without actual receipt of the goods and has accordingly held the petitioner to be liable. There is no dispute about the legal position that availability of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, where there is clear violation of the procedure established by law or in violation of the elementary principles of natural justice. However in the case at hand the impugned order is a reasoned and

9. In our opinion it is not a fit case where the efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner can be bye passed.

Operative decision and relief

The operative relief must be read from the final paragraphs of the complete packaged judgment.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with M/S Universal Enterprises v. Union Of India And Another concerns issue and context: the instant writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 25.04.2023 passed by the joint commissioner, central gst, ghaziabad whereby and whereunder the input tax credit availed and further utilized by the petitioner against invoices issued without actual receipt of goods has been held to be inadmissible in terms of section 16 of the cgst act, 2017 read with rule 36 of cgst rules, 2017 and the demand and recovery of input tax credit amounting to rs. 15,64,58,361 (igst 8,04,90,895/- +cgst rs/ 3,79,83,733/- + sgst rs. 3,79,83,733/-) availed and utilized on the basis of fake invoices issued by non existent suppliers without concomitant goods during the period from october 2017 to march 2022 under section 74 (1) of the cgst act, 2017 and upgst act, 2017 read with section 20 of the igst act, 2017, from the petitioner along with interest under section 50 of the… The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in WRIT TAX No. 1015 of 2023.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Dismissed” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: Issue and context: The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 25.04.2023 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Central GST, Ghaziabad whereby and whereunder the Input Tax Credit availed and further utilized by the petitioner against invoices issued without actual receipt of goods has been held to be inadmissible in terms of Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 36 of CGST rules, 2017 and the demand and recovery of input tax credit amounting to Rs. 15,64,58,361 (IGST 8,04,90,895/- +CGST Rs/ 3,79,83,733/- + SGST Rs. 3,79,83,733/-) availed and utilized on the basis of fake invoices issued by non existent suppliers without concomitant goods during the period from October 2017 to March 2022 under Section 74 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and UPGST Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017, from the petitioner along with interest under Section 50 of the… Its practical value lies in the way the Allahabad High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 16; GST statutory provision - Section 20; GST statutory provision - Section 50; GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 122—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of GST statutory provision - Section 16; GST statutory provision - Section 20; GST statutory provision - Section 50; GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 122 and the decision date 2023-10-05; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is M/S Universal Enterprises v. Union Of India And Another, the proceeding is WRIT TAX No. 1015 of 2023, and the decision is dated 2023-10-05. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,Chief Justice; Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with GST statutory provision - Section 16; GST statutory provision - Section 20; GST statutory provision - Section 50; GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 122. The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Dismissed. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_SUBSEQUENT_TREATMENT_CHECK_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• GST statutory provision - Section 16 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 20 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 50 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 74 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 107 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 122 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• Rishi Enterprises through Proprietor Rajeev Kumar Goel v. Additional Commissioner, Central Tax, Delhi North and Another — Delhi High Court · Dismissed
• M/S PATANJALI AYURVED LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Allahabad High Court · Dismissed
• Ram Pratap Singh v. Union Of India And 7 Others — Allahabad High Court · Dismissed
• Trimurti Fragrances And Flavours Pvt. Ltd. And 6 Others v. Director General Of Goods And Services Tax 2 Others — Allahabad High Court · Dismissed

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 792 judgments
• Explore Input Tax Credit

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_TEXT_SANITIZED_RENDITION · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY