Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2023 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 697 - HC - GSTValidity of proceedings initiated by the respondent - parallel proceedings initiated against the appellant by two different agencies - HELD THAT - During March 2020, there was an inspection conducted by the officials of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence and pursuant to such inspection, investigation has been going on for about two years. It is also an admitted fact that the documents relating to the financial transaction for the period from July 2017 to March 2021 have been handed over by the appellant to the officials of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence for their verification. While so, the respondent, invoking the provisions contained under Section 65 of the CGST Act, initiated proceedings and demanded the appellant to furnish the documents. There are exchange of communications between the appellant and the respondent, which make it clear that the documents sought for by the respondent were already seized and are in custody of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence. The fact remains that the documents required to be produced by the respondent were already seized by other authority viz ., the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, Chennai Zonal Unit, during their search on 13.03.2020 and 16.03.2020 and that, those copies were not available with the appellant - this court is of the opinion that the respondent shall consider the documents, which are in possession of the other authority as well as in the custody of the respondent and also based on the replies submitted by the appellant on 10.09.2022 and 29.11.2022 and thereafter, pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law. Petition disposed off.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case include the appellant's challenge against the order dismissing the Writ Petition No. 85 of 2023, the demand to produce books of account for audit under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the parallel proceedings initiated by different agencies for the same period of transactions, and the violation of principles of natural justice. Issue 1: Challenge against the order dismissing the Writ Petition: The appellant filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash notices demanding production of books of account for audit under the CGST Act. The respondent issued subsequent notices despite the appellant's explanations and requests for exemption from producing documents due to ongoing investigations by another agency. The learned Judge dismissed the Writ Petition, stating that the notices were issued post-audit notice under Section 65, and the case laws cited by the appellant were distinguishable. The Judge found no illegality in the respondent's actions and concluded that the petition failed to demonstrate impermissibility of parallel proceedings. Issue 2: Demand to produce books of account for audit under the CGST Act: The appellant, a contractor registered with the Highways Department, was asked to produce books of account for audit under the CGST Act for the period from July 2017 to March 2020. Despite explanations and prior submissions of documents to another agency, the respondent continued to demand compliance with the audit requirements. The appellant argued that parallel proceedings by different agencies for the same period would prejudice them. The High Court noted the exchange of communications and directed the respondent to consider the documents already seized by another authority and pass appropriate orders based on the submissions made by the appellant. Issue 3: Violation of principles of natural justice: The appellant contended that the respondent's proceedings were in violation of principles of natural justice as they failed to furnish copies of voluminous documents and continued to demand compliance despite the documents being in possession of another authority. The appellant's counsel argued that the respondent's actions were impermissible due to the ongoing investigations by a different agency. The High Court directed the respondent to consider all relevant documents and submissions before making any further decisions.
|