JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- Navneet Bansal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing the Order-in-Original dated 28th November 2024 (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’) passed by the Respondent-Additional Commissioner, CGST Delhi North. The same arises out of Show Cause Notice (hereinafter ‘SCN’) dated 7th May, 2021.

3. The background of the present case is that Directorate General of GST Intelligence (hereinafter, ‘DGGI’), Delhi Zonal Unit had received intelligence in respect of availment of ineligible CENVAT Credit by raising of fraudulent invoices showing sale of goods such as PVC Resin SP. On the basis of the said intelligence, searches were carried out at various premises including one of M/s Saraswati Printers dated 21st December, 2020. The statements of Mr. Vikas Narang and Mr. Randhir Kumar Jha of M/s Saraswati Printers were recorded which revealed further that the Petitioner was one of the persons from whom invoices were received and who was paid commission for raising of the invoices.

4. The Petitioner’s statement was recorded on 6th January, 2021 when the search was conducted when his statement is stated to have been recorded in the following terms:

“14. M/s Banson Enterprise, Khasra No 154/345, Ground Extended Lal Dora, VPO- Pooth Khurd Delhi-110039 was searched on 06.01.2021. During the search, Panchanama dated 06.01.2021 was drawn at the premises. [RUD 12]

15. Statement of Shri Navneet Bansal, Partner of M/s Banson Enterprise was recorded on 06.01.2021 (RUD 12A) wherein he inter-alia stated that:-

a) On being asked to explain the details of purchases made by them and supplies made to M/s Saraswati Printers at B-134, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-l New Delhi and their Old address B-71, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1 New Delhi, he stated that they had not made any purchase from M/s Saraswati Printers and also not made any supply to M/s Saraswati Printers from July 2017 onwards.

b) On being asked, he stated that they had issued only invoices without supply of goods on request of Shri Vikas Narang, partner of M/s Saraswati Printers and for this they had received a particular amount of commission from Shri Vikas Narang for issue of invoices without actual supply of PVC resin and during 30/06/2016 to 21/03/2017 they had issued the invoices of the taxable value amounting 45,04,500/. He further stated that they had only issued invoices to M/s Saraswati Printers and after the said invoices were issued, M/s Saraswati Printers used to make the payment for the same and after deducting their commission they used to return the cash to M/s Saraswati Printers.

From the scrutiny of the sale invoices on sample basis, it is observed that the vehicle number mentioned in the most of the invoices for example invoice no BE/EX-266/2016-17 dated 30.06.2016 [Vehicle No. DL 1 LW 6362], invoice no BE/EX-262/2016-17 dated 30.06.2016 [Vehicle no- DL 1 LW 6361] and invoice no BE/EX-260/2016-17 dated 30.06.2016 [Vehicle no HR 38 N 7281] etc. are Light Commercial Vehicle and the quantity mentioned in these invoices is 5000 kilograms. However, as per the government norms LV loading capacity is only 3500 Kilograms. It appears that M/s Benson Enterprises had randomly mentioned the number of vehicles without noticing the loading capacity of LCV vehicles. (Colly RUD-12B)”

5. On the basis of the statement recorded, SCN was issued to several parties including the Petitioner.

6. After issuance of the SCN dated 7th May, 2021 which was sent to the Petitioner on 9th May, 2021 at 01:42:06 P.M., the Petitioner wrote two emails dated 9th June, 2021 and 27th August, 2021 merely seeking copies of the Relied Upon Documents (hereinafter, ‘RUDs’). No reply on merits was filed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner also did not file any retraction of his statement. The same led to the impugned order being passed imposing a penalty of Rs.1,63,36,788/