Page 106 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

8 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
ducted at the premises of the petitioner-establishment and other related premis-
es, it was reveled that the magnitude of the offence committed by the petitioner-
establishment was far more grave and serious. It was in the course of raid found
that the petitioner had been making false and bogus transactions and has illegal-
ly availed ineligible ITC credits. The magnitude of which detected by now is ap-
proximately Rs. 60 crores and with further investigation the amount is likely to
increase manifold.
14. This Court does not find any substance in the arguments of the peti-
tioner, when they say that the investigation and the proceedings now initiated is
one, which hit by Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act of 2017. What has also to be
appreciated is the fact that there is a clear distinction between a proceeding
drawn for the demand of tax evaded by the petitioner-establishment and the in-
vestigation be conducted by the Department of the DG, GST Intelligence Wings
in respect of an offence committed by an establishment by way of using bogus
and fake invoices and illegally availing ITCs, which the petitioner-establishment
otherwise was ineligible.
15. So far as the judgments referred to by the petitioner in support of
his contention what cannot be lost sight of is the fact that those judgments were
rendered under entirely different contextual background as compared to the fac-
tual matrix in the present case and the ratio laid down in those judgments are
also not what could be applied at this juncture. Even the judgments of the Divi-
sion Bench of this Court referred to by the petitioner-establishment again is one,
which has been decided in an entirely different contextual background as com-
pared to the facts of the present case and those judgments are distinguishable on
facts itself.
16. The writ petition thus fails and is accordingly rejected.

_______

2020 (35) G.S.T.L. 8 (Ker.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Alexander Thomas, J.
PHOENIX RUBBERS
Versus
COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, SGST DEPTT., PALAKKAD

W.P. (C) No. 35159 of 2019 (T), decided on 3-2-2020
Registration under GST - Cancellation thereof - Default in filing
returns - Continuous default of six months - Tabular statement filed by peti-
tioner as verified by Department confirming that while at time of issuance of
SCN for cancellation of registration, there was indeed a continuous default of
six months in filing returns - However, on same date when order of cancella-
tion was issued, petitioner had filed return in the morning in respect of one
first month - Thus, on date of issuing cancellation order default in filing return
was for continuous period of five months and not six months - Officer passing
cancellation order cannot be faulted as, return having been filed online, he
was not aware of it nor did petitioner inform immediately or thereafter about

GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  170