Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2022 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 1000 - HC - GSTZonal jurisdiction of inquiry investigation - transfer of such inquiry/investigation from Ghaziabad Regional Unit to Respondent No. 2 - territorial jurisdiction of the proceedings being carried out by the Respondent No. 3 - fake and fraudulent input tax credit - creation of numerous fake firms - HELD THAT:- It is trite law that at the stage of show cause notice, summons, chargesheet or notice to appear, constitutional courts would not interfere as to interject the proceedings and thereby, prevent the authorities from proceeding with. Perusal of the various provisions of CGST Act which have been discussed in various judgments time and again demonstrate that the summons for appearance issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act and the authorization for arrest issued under Section 69 (1) of the CGST Act, do not fall within the ambit of the definition of “Criminal Proceedings”, because criminal proceeding commences, only after the launch of prosecution. It is pertinent to mention that Section 132 (1) of CGST Act lists out about twelve different types of offences under Clauses (a) to (l) and five out of these twelve offences are cognizable and non-bailable in view of Section 132 (5) of CGST Act and the remaining seven offences are non-cognizable and bailable in view of Section 132(4) of the CGST Act. Jurisdiction - HELD THAT:- In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot go into the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint or delve into the disputed question of facts. The issues involving facts raised by the petitioner by way of defence is a matter of investigation/inquiry and the same will have to be adjudicated on merits of the case and not by way of invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at this stage - The parameters of the jurisdiction of the High Court in exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, are now almost well-settled. Although it has wide amplitude, but a great deal of caution is also required in its exercise. The requirement is the application of well-known legal principles involved in each and every matter adverting back the facts of the present case, this Court does not find any material on record which can be stated to be of sterling and impeccable quality warranting invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at this stage of issuance of summons. More so, the defence raised by the petitioners in the petition requires evidence, which cannot be appreciated, evaluated or adjudged in the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Keeping in view the fact that the investigation is still at a nascent stage and that the present case involves fraud of ₹ 350 crores approximately and around 200 firms are involved in placing fraudulent Input Tax Credit coupled with the fact that one Upender Singh, a bank official at ICICI Bank, Kamla Nagar, has levelled specific allegations against the petitioner and has stated that at the behest of the petitioner and his father, he had opened accounts for these 200 firms without physical verification and further, looking into the conduct of the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief from this court - there are no flaw or infirmity in the territorial jurisdiction of the proceedings being carried out by the Respondent No. 3. Petition dismissed.
|