JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is admittedly not an assessee/tax payer with reference to the provisions of the CGST Act , 2017/ SGST Act, 2017/ IGST Act, 2017, has filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge the show cause notice at Ext.P1 issued under the provisions of Section 74 of the CGST Act .

2. I have heard Sri.Akhil Suresh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri.Sreelal N. Warrier, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

3. The contention raised by Sri.Akhil Suresh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is to the effect that the petitioner herein has been proceeded against with reference to the activities of one M/s Vaikom Enterprises, which is a proprietary concern of one Milton Paul, who is the primary noticee in Ext.P1 notice. According to him, the notice at Ext.P1 has been issued essentially on the allegation that refund in excess of Rs.2.60 Crores has been obtained by the tax payer referred to above, on the basis of certain non-existent input tax credit, since there was actually no movement of goods to prove receipt of goods so as to avail ITC. According to him, the petitioner herein was in no way connected with the business of