Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 218 (GUJ)

Shankar Mundra v. Union of India

2025-03-06

BHARGAV D.KARIA, D.N.RAY

body2025
ORDER : BHARGAV D. KARIA, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Sholab Arora with learned advocate Ms. Vidhi Katoravala for learned advocate Mr. Hiren J. Trivedi for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr. Neel Lakhani for learned advocate Mr. Pradip D. Bhate for the respondents through video conference. 2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order-in-original dated 24.12.2024 passed by the respondent no.2 Additional Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.08.2024, the Proper Officer issued composite Show Cause Notices under sections 74 and 122 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (For short “CST Act”) and Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (For short “GST Act”) to raise a demand under section 74 against M/s. Poonam Creation whose proprietor was one Ashok Gaggar on the ground that M/s. Poonam Creation had availed fraudulent Input Tax Credit on the strength of alleged fake invoices. The Proper Officer proposed to impose a joint and several liability/penalty to the tune of Rs.4,34,16,381/- on the petitioners along with other co-noticees under sections 74 and 122 of the CST Act and GST Act. 4. In pursuance to such show cause notice, the petitioners submitted their reply on 12.12.2024. 5. The Proper Officer vide impugned order-in-original dated 24.12.2024 rejected the contentions raised by the petitioner and raised a demand of Rs.4,34,16,381/- against the petitioners along with other noticees under section 74(1) of the CST Act and GST Act and a penalty was imposed of even amount under section 122 and 127 of the CST Act and GST Act. 6. Being aggrieved by the show cause notice and the impugned order, the petitioners have preferred the present petition. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Sholab Arora for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order-in-original is without jurisdiction as the petitioners are not taxable person and therefore, provisions of section 74 could not have been invoked to issue the show cause notice against the petitioners. It was submitted that penalty levied upon the petitioners under section 122 read with section 127 of the GST Act is also not tenable as section 127 only provides for procedure for levy of penalty and no power is conferred upon the respondent no.2 to levy the penalty. 8. It was submitted that penalty levied upon the petitioners under section 122 read with section 127 of the GST Act is also not tenable as section 127 only provides for procedure for levy of penalty and no power is conferred upon the respondent no.2 to levy the penalty. 8. It was further submitted that vague allegations are made in the show cause notice against the petitioners and in absence of any further material found or analysed in the impugned order-in- original, the petitioners could not have been put at par with the taxable person M/s. Poonam Creation who availed the input tax credit in respect of inward supplies received from various fake/non existent firms/entities without inward supplies being made by the supplier firms. 9. It was submitted that in order-in-original only allegation against the petitioners is recorded in para nos. 5.2 and 5.3 to the effect that from the bank account statement of M/s Poonam Creation three consecutive deposits, total amounting to Rs.10,70,000/- before taking GST registration of M/s. Poonam Creation were done by Ashok Creation which was alleged to have been formed by the petitioners. It was pointed out that except such allegations, there is no other allegation in the entire show cause notice or the impugned order so as to consider the petitioners as a part of syndicate for obtaining the GST registration in name of M/s. Poonam Creation and of availing and passing of fake input tax credit of M/s. Poonam Creation. It was therefore, submitted that the penalty levied upon the petitioner equivalent to Rs.4,34,16,381/- at par with M/s. Poonam Creation is liable to be quashed and set aside and the respondent no.2 could not have levied the penalty upon the petitioners by invoking the provisions of section 122(1A) which was not on the statute at the relevant time when such transaction had taken place. 10. 10. In support of his submission, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd. And others reported in (2007) 5 Supreme Court Cases 388 to submit that the when there is no allegation of the respondent against the petitioners being parties to any arrangement and in absence of any material in that regard placed on record, the entire foundation on which the case against the petitioner is build up, is without any basis, as there is no specific allegation but the allegations made against the petitioners are vague, lacks details and/or unintelligible which is sufficient to hold that the petitioner was not given proper opportunity to meet the allegations indicated in show cause notice. It was therefore, submitted that in view of decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the impugned order-in-original by which the penalty is levied upon the petitioners is liable to be quashed and set aside. 11. It was further submitted that so far as petitioner no.2 is concerned there is no allegation levelled against him either in the show cause notice or in the order- in-original and as such, no penalty could have been levied upon petitioner no.2 by any stretch of imagination. 12. Further reliance was placed on decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shantanu Sanjay Hundekari v. Union of India and others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 929 to submit that provisions of section 74 read with section 122 of the CST Act can only be invoked against taxable person and the petitioners not being taxable persons, no proceedings could have been initiated against the petitioners and therefore, the entire proceedings from the initiation of issuance of show cause notice till passing the impugned order-in-original are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed and set aside. 13. In the alternative, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that respondent no.2 could not have issued the notice under section 74 of the GST Act for multiple periods of time and in support of his submission, reliance was placed on following decisions: i) Titan Company ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Salem and another reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 8082. ii) Vermax Technologie Services Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru reported in (2024) 167 taxmann.com 332 (Karnataka). v. Joint Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Salem and another reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 8082. ii) Vermax Technologie Services Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru reported in (2024) 167 taxmann.com 332 (Karnataka). iii) Bangalore Golf Club v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes reported in (2024) 166 taxmann.com 642 (Karnataka). iv) Joint Commissioner (Intelligence & Enforcement) v. Lakshmi Mobile Accessories reported in (2025) 171 taxmann.com 214 (Kerala). 14. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that section 74 can be invoked only against person chargeable to tax as per Circular dated 6 th July, 2022 which is a clarification on various issues relating to applicability of demand and penalty under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in respect of transactions involving fake invoices. 15. Having heard the learned advocate for the petitioners and considering the facts of the case, the glaring and most appealing fact which emerges from the entire record including the memo of the petition is that the petitioners have not stated about themselves at any place in memo of petition or in reply to the show cause notice or during the course of personal hearing before respondent no.2. 16. It appears that the petitioners on the contrary has filed a common reply to the show cause notice in absolutely vague and slipshod manner and therefore, the same is reproduced here in below : “Response of Sh. Shankar Mundra (Noticee No. 4) and Sh. Ujit Kishnagopal Mundra (Noticee No.5): 3. A perusal of the contents of the SCN shows that the involvement of Sh. Shankar Mundra (Noticee No. 4) and Sh. Ujit Kishnagopal Mundra (Noticee No. 5) in the present matter is on flimsy and vague grounds, and has no factual foundation whatsoever. The allegations against Sh. Shankar Mundra (Noticee No. 4) and Sh. Ujit Kishnagopal Mundra (Noticee No. 5) appear only in paras 5.2 and 5.3 (page 51 of the SCN) and there are no other factual allegations against the two of them elsewhere in the SCN. 4. It has been alleged in para 5.2 that certain bank deposits were made in the account of M/s Poonam Creation by M/s Ashok Creation before the GST registration of M/s Poonam Creation; and that in the matter of M/s Ashok Creation, a Show Cause Notice was issued by DGGI, SZU, Surat wherein it was found that M/s Ashok Creation was created by Sh. Shankar Mundra (Noticee No. 4) for fraudulent purposes. In response, it is submitted that: first,the copy of the said Show Cause Notice issued by DGGI has not been supplied along with the captioned SCN, nor does the captioned SCN provide any details as to how it was concluded that M/s Ashok Creation was created by Sh. Shankar Mundra (Noticee No. 4), and therefore, this allegation is absolutely vague in nature and deserves outright denial; second, even otherwise, it has not been alleged in the captioned SCN that ITC has been passed from M/s Ashok Creation to M/s Poonam Creation or vice versa, and hence, it is hard to discern as to how Sh. Shankar Mundra (Noticee No.4) can be said to be involved in the present matter which is pertaining to M/s Poonam Creation solely because some bank transfers were made in the account of M/s Poonam Creation by M/s Ashok Creation even before the GST registration of M/s Poonam Creation. As far as Sh. Ujit Kishangopal Mundra is concerned, it is submitted that there is not a single material allegation against him in the captioned SCN besides a vague allegation that he is a part of syndicate with other Noticees; however, there is no proof / document / material particulars which would justify such vague allegation. It is a settled principle of law that vague allegations in a Show Cause Notice have no value in the eyes of the law. 5. In any case, as becomes evident from paras 14 and 15 of the captioned SCN, penalty is sought to be föisted on Sh. Shankar Mundra (Noticee No. 4) and Sh. Ujit Kishnagopal Mundra (Noticee No. 5) by virtue of Section 122 (IA) of the GST Acts. However, the said provision was only inserted by Finance Act 2020 and came into force on 01.01.2021, and hence, the same cannot even be applied in the present case as all the allegations in the captioned SCN are pertaining to the period prior to 01.01.2021. Furthermore, Section 122 (IA) can only be invoked against a taxable person as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Shantanu Sanjay Hundekari vs Union of India [2024 SCC OnLine Bom 929]. Therefore, it is prayed that the captioned SCN against Sh. Shankar Mundra (Noticee No. 4) and Sh. Ujit Kishnagopal Mundra (Noticee No. 5) be withdrawn.” 17. Furthermore, Section 122 (IA) can only be invoked against a taxable person as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Shantanu Sanjay Hundekari vs Union of India [2024 SCC OnLine Bom 929]. Therefore, it is prayed that the captioned SCN against Sh. Shankar Mundra (Noticee No. 4) and Sh. Ujit Kishnagopal Mundra (Noticee No. 5) be withdrawn.” 17. On perusal of the above common reply filed by the petitioners to the show cause notice along with other co-notices, the petitioners have tried to find fault with respondent no.2 by contending that the allegations are vague in nature and deserves outright denial without disclosing any fact about the petitioners in the reply. The petitioners have not stated anywhere that the allegations made against the petitioners that they are the founders of Ashok Creation who has provided funds to M/s. Poonam Creation in the bank account are correct or not so that the petitioners cannot be considered as part of the syndicate which is alleged in the show cause notice. In fact, by such common reply filed by the petitioners there is static admission by the petitioners that the petitioners are part of the syndicate who have availed the benefit of input tax credit to the tune of Rs.4,34,16,381/- during the period of August, 2017 to September, 2020 in contravention of the provisions of the GST Act by creating bogus firm of M/s. Poonam Creation and M/s. Ashok Creation and thereafter adopting the modus operandi as stated in the impugned order-in-original by availing the fake invoices from more than 67 suppliers without supply of the material goods. 18. Thus in our opinion the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners are required to be rejected outright which are based upon the legal provisions contrary the facts of the case which are emerging from the record as recorded in impugned order-in-original. 19. Reliance placed by learned advocate for the petitioner on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd. And others (supra) is concerned, the facts before the Hon’ble Supreme Court were with regard to judgment and order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) wherein appeal was preferred before CEGAT and after scrutiny of the facts and documents, the order was passed and challenged before Hon’ble Apex Court. On perusal of facts which are recorded in the said impugned judgment and order passed by the Apex Court, it is discernible that CEGAT which is a fact finding authority did not find any substance in plea made on behalf of the appellant and considering the fact that in the show cause notice, no specific role was attributed to the respondent before the Apex Court and arrangement alleged have not been shown to be within the knowledge or at the behest or with the connivance of the respondents, the Apex Court held as under: “13. We find that in the show cause notice there was nothing specific as to the role of the respondents, if any. The arrangements as alleged have not been shown to be within the knowledge or at the behest or with the connivance of the respondents. Independent arrangements were entered into by the respondents with the franchise holder. On a perusal of the show cause notice the stand of the respondents clearly gets established. 14. There is no allegation of the respondents being parties to any arrangement. In any event, no material in that regard was placed on record. The show cause notice is the foundation on which the department has to build up its case. If the allegations in the show cause notice are not specific and are on the contrary vague, lack details and/or unintelligible that is sufficient to hold that the noticee was not given proper opportunity to meet the allegations indicated in the show cause notice. In the instant case, what the appellant has tried to highlight is the alleged connection between the various concerns. That is not sufficient to proceed against the respondents unless it is shown that they were parties to the arrangements, if any. In the instant case, what the appellant has tried to highlight is the alleged connection between the various concerns. That is not sufficient to proceed against the respondents unless it is shown that they were parties to the arrangements, if any. As no sufficient material much less any material has been placed on record to substantiate the stand of the appellant, the conclusions of the Commissioner as affirmed by the CEGAT cannot be faulted.” Whereas in the facts of the present case, the role of the petitioners is narrated in the show cause notice in detail being part of the syndicate of the persons who have been instrumental in obtaining registration in name of the fake companies to avail ITC by indulging into bogus invoices which is not denied by the petitioners specifically at any point of time and therefore, the petitioners cannot rely on the decision of the Apex Court on the ground of vague allegations whereas on perusal of the show cause notice and the impugned order-in-original, role of the petitioners is articulated by the respondent authorities which clearly shows in absence of any denial by the petitioners to the effect that the petitioners were part of syndicate and therefore, the impugned order cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. 20. With regard to the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that notice under sections 74 and 122 of the GST Act could have been issued only against taxable person is concerned, it is pertinent to note that petitioners are only co-noticee along with the taxable person who has helped and who is part of the syndicate so as to evade tax and as such, as per the provisions of section 74 read with section 122 of the GST Act, the respondents were justified in initiating the proceedings against the petitioners who are part of the transactions of taxable person and who have aided the taxable person in defrauding the revenue. The petitioners have also not stated who are the taxable persons and only name of M/s.Poonam Creation is stated and the role of the petitioners with M/s. Poonam Creation or Ashok Creation is not denied at all after receipt of show cause notice from respondent no.2. Section 74 and 122 of the GST Act read as under: “ Section 74. The petitioners have also not stated who are the taxable persons and only name of M/s.Poonam Creation is stated and the role of the petitioners with M/s. Poonam Creation or Ashok Creation is not denied at all after receipt of show cause notice from respondent no.2. Section 74 and 122 of the GST Act read as under: “ Section 74. Determination of tax 2[,pertaining to the period up to Financial Year 2023-24,] not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised by reason of fraud or any willful- misstatement or suppression of facts.- (1) Where it appears to the proper officer that any tax has not been paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or where input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilised by reason of fraud, or any wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax, he shall serve notice on the person chargeable with tax which has not been so paid or which has been so short paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been made, or who has wrongly availed or utilised input tax credit, requiring him to show cause as to why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice along with interest payable thereon under section 50 and a penalty equivalent to the tax specified in the notice. xxxxx Section 122. xxxxx Section 122. Penalty for certain offences- (1) Where a taxable person who- (i) supplies any goods or services or both without issue of any invoice or issues an incorrect or false invoice with regard to any such supply; (ii) issues any invoice or bill without supply of goods or services or both in violation of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder; (iii) collects any amount as tax but fails to pay the same to the Government beyond a period of three months from the date on which such payment becomes due; (iv) collects any tax in contravention of the provisions of this Act but fails to pay the same to the Government beyond a period of three months from the date on which such payment becomes due; (v) fails to deduct the tax in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 51, or deducts an amount which is less than the amount required to be deducted under the said sub- section, or where he fails to pay to the Government under sub- section (2) thereof, the amount deducted as tax; (vi) fails to collect tax in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 52, or collects an amount which is less than the amount required to be collected under the said sub- section or where he fails to pay to the Government the amount collected as tax under sub-section (3) of section 52; (vii) takes or utilises input tax credit without actual receipt of goods or services or both either fully or partially, in contravention of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder; (viii) fraudulently obtains refund of tax under this Act; (ix) takes or distributes input tax credit in contravention of section 20, or the rules made thereunder; (x) falsifies or substitutes financial records or produces fake accounts or documents or furnishes any false information or return with an intention to evade payment of tax due under this Act; (xi) is liable to be registered under this Act but fails to obtain registration; (xii) furnishes any false information with regard to registration particulars, either at the time of applying for registration, or subsequently; (xiii) obstructs or prevents any officer in discharge of his duties under this Act; (xiv) transports any taxable goods without the cover of documents as may be specified in this behalf; (xv) suppresses his turnover leading to evasion of tax under this Act; (xvi) fails to keep, maintain or retain books of account and other documents in accordance with the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder; (xvii) fails to furnish information or documents called for by an officer in accordance with the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder or furnishes false information or documents during any proceedings under this Act; (xviii) supplies, transports or stores any goods which he has reasons to believe are liable to confiscation under this Act; (xix) issues any invoice or document by using the registration number of another registered person; (xx) tampers with, or destroys any material evidence or document; (xxi) disposes off or tampers with any goods that have been detained, seized, or attached under this Act, he shall be liable to pay a penalty of ten thousand rupees or an amount equivalent to the tax evaded or the tax not deducted under section 51 or short deducted or deducted but not paid to the Government or tax not collected under section 52 or short collected or collected but not paid to the Government or input tax credit availed of or passed on or distributed irregularly, or the refund claimed fraudulently, whichever is higher. (1A) Any person who retains the benefit of a transaction covered under clauses (i), (ii), (vii) or clause (ix) of sub-section (1) and at whose instance such transaction is conducted, shall be liable to a penalty of an amount equivalent to the tax evaded or input tax credit availed of or passed on. [(1B) [Any electronic commerce operator, who is liable to collect tax at source under section 52,]— (i) allows a supply of goods or services or both through it by an unregistered person other than a person exempted from registration by a notification issued under this Act to make such supply; (ii) allows an inter-State supply of goods or services or both through it by a person who is not eligible to make such inter-State supply; or (iii) fails to furnish the correct details in the statement to be furnished under sub-section (4) of section 52 of any outward supply of goods effected through it by a person exempted from obtaining registration under this Act, shall be liable to pay a penalty of ten thousand rupees, or an amount equivalent to the amount of tax involved had such supply been made by a registered person other than a person paying tax under section 10, whichever is higher] (2) Any registered person who supplies any goods or services or both on which any tax has not been paid or short-paid or erroneously refunded, or where the input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilised,- (a) for any reason, other than the reason of fraud or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax, shall be liable to a penalty of ten thousand rupees or ten per cent. of the tax due from such person, whichever is higher; (b) for reason of fraud or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax, shall be liable to a penalty equal to ten thousand rupees or the tax due from such person, whichever is higher. of the tax due from such person, whichever is higher; (b) for reason of fraud or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax, shall be liable to a penalty equal to ten thousand rupees or the tax due from such person, whichever is higher. (3) Any person who- (a) aids or abets any of the offences specified in clauses (i) to (xxi) of subsection (1); (b) acquires possession of, or in any way concerns himself in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, supplying, or purchasing or in any other manner deals with any goods which he knows or has reasons to believe are liable to confiscation under this Act or the rules made thereunder; (c) receives or is in any way concerned with the supply of, or in any other manner deals with any supply of services which he knows or has reasons to believe are in contravention of any provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder; (d) fails to appear before the officer of central tax, when issued with a summon for appearance to give evidence or produce a document in an inquiry; (e) fails to issue invoice in accordance with the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder or fails to account for an invoice in his books of account, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to twenty-five thousand rupees.” 21. This Court in case of S. Kushalchand International Pvt. Ltd & Anr. v. The Additional Director, Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence & Anr. rendered on 23.01.2025 in Special Civil Application No. 15904 of 2023 in similar facts held as under: “88. With regard to the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners of invocation of provisions of section 122 and section 122(1A) of the GST Act, the same pertains to the subject matter of show cause notices or adjudication of the show cause notices. The petitioners have also raised various disputed questions of fact regarding allegations made in the show cause notices. The petitioners have also raised various disputed questions of fact regarding allegations made in the show cause notices. As observed here-in-above, prima-facie, it cannot be said that the petitioners are not at all involved in the clandestine supply of raw materials used by other co- noticee/s for clandestine supply of perfumery compounds being used by M/s. Trimurti Fragrance Private Limited, Kanpur and M/s. Trimurti Fragrances and Flavours Private Limited, Kanpur for the unaccounted production and clandestine supplies/clearances of Pan Masala and scented Tobacco/Jarda. It is pertinent to not that considering the magnitude of the evasion of GST described in the show cause notices which run into more than 400 pages levelling various allegations against the petitioners providing detailed reason for levy of tax, interest and penalty upon all the noticee/s, the respondent no.2 would have the jurisdiction to adjudicate all the show cause notices. 89. In such circumstances, it would not be proper to entertain the writ petitions while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the fact that allegations made in the show cause notices are required to be examined in the adjudication proceedings before one adjudicating authority only, we are of the opinion that no interference is called for in the impugned show cause notices at this stage and the petitioners may raise all the contentions which are raised in these petitions before the adjudicating authority including the issue of jurisdiction as all the questions raised by the petitioners herein are left open to be adjudicated by the adjudicating authority. 90. In case of Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2006 (12) SCC 33 , while considering the jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining the writ petition questioning show cause notice Hon’ble Apex Court has held that ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questioning a notice to show cause unless the same appears to be without jurisdiction. In the facts of the present case, the impugned show cause notices are not without jurisdiction as respondent no.2 would have jurisdiction to adjudicate the same as per the analysis of various notifications relied upon on behalf of the petitioners. 91. Similarly, in case of Special Director and another v. Mohd. In the facts of the present case, the impugned show cause notices are not without jurisdiction as respondent no.2 would have jurisdiction to adjudicate the same as per the analysis of various notifications relied upon on behalf of the petitioners. 91. Similarly, in case of Special Director and another v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another reported in 2004 (3) SCC 440 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “5.This Court in a large number of cases has deprecated the practice of the High Courts entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of the show cause notices stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in the presence of the parties. Unless, the High Court is satisfied that the show cause notice was totally non est in the eye of law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into facts, writ petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of routine, and the writ petitioner should invariably be directed to respond to the show cause notice and take all stands highlighted in the writ petition. Whether the show cause notice was founded on any legal premises is a jurisdictional issue which can even be urged by the recipient of the notice and such issues also can be adjudicated by the authority issuing the very notice initially, before the aggrieved could approach the Court. Further, when the Court passes an interim order it should be careful to see that the statutory functionaries specially and specifically constituted for the purpose are not denuded of powers and authority to initially decide the matter and ensure that ultimate relief which may or may not be finally granted in the writ petition is accorded to the writ petitioner even at the threshold by the interim protection, granted.” 92. Exposition of law spelt out from above discussion is that ordinarily under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court should not interfere with a show cause notice unless the same is without jurisdiction or barred by law or suffers from any patent illegality. In the facts of the case, none of the conditions exist so as to entertain this writ petition and no interference in writ jurisdiction at this stage is called for.” 22. In the facts of the case, none of the conditions exist so as to entertain this writ petition and no interference in writ jurisdiction at this stage is called for.” 22. As far as the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Shantanu Hundekari (Supra) is concerned, the facts of the case were completely different from what has been presented in the instant case. In Shantanu Hundekari (Supra), the petitioner had rendered assistance to Maersk Lines in his capacity as “taxation manger” and on behalf of Maersk also volunteered to assist the investigation being conducted by the tax authorities in response to the summons issued to Maersk. The investigation against Maersk was that of wrongfully availing ITC. Thus, Maersk was contesting the show cause notice on legal/technical applicability of availment of ITC and the petitioner in the said case was involved in a professional managerial capacity. In other words, the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court was passed in favour of Shantanu Hunkekari in the facts of the said case as noted herein above. As far as the present petitioners are concerned, they are co-noticees in respect of an investigation into large scale fraud, being part of a syndicate and therefore, the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Shantanu Hundekari (Supra) is not applicable to the petitioners’ case. 23. In view of the foregoing reasons and dictum of law, the petition being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed.