9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndents : Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate C.A. V. ORDER 1. The present writ petition has been filed questioning the investigation initiated by the respondents and the summons issued in connection with the said investigation. The primary challenge to the investigation and the summons issued was a specific bar under the GST Act, 2017. 2. It would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the relief sought for by the petitioner: "10.1 It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in nature of Quo Warranto and/or any other appropriate writ requiring the respondents to show under what authority the impugned action of investigation and summon dated 3.2.2020 has commenced despite there being a specific bar in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... principles of natural justice before any recovery of tax and/or prosecution may be done against the petitioner or its Directors/employees." 3. If we peruse the relief nos. 10.2, 10.4 and 10.6 it would clearly reveal that the petitioner through this writ petition was ready to face the investigation provided the aforesaid relief sought in paragraph 10.2, 10.4 and 10.6 is complied with. 4. The brief facts which led to the filing of the present writ petition is that the petitioner is a registered company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The said company is engaged in the business of trading of iron and steel items. The nature of business which the petitioner carries is that of purchasing goods from the steel manufacturers and sell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of registration of the petitioner for the reasons of dealing in fake invoices. Subsequently, on 15.11.2019 the respondents had cancelled the registration of the petitioner. 6. Subsequently, the respondents again issued a show cause notice on 12.12.2019 proposing to cancel registration of the petitioner on the same allegations of issuance of fake invoices to which also even before the petitioner could response to the proceedings commenced, the respondents had vide order dated 28.08.2019 cancelled the registration of the petitioner. 7. The petitioner again applied for restoration of registration vide application dated 31.12.2019, which is still pending consideration before the concerned authorities. Meanwhile, the respondents issued a show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he whole investigation proceeding initiated by the respondents including that of the arrest that has been made is without and beyond jurisdiction. 9. According to the counsel for the petitioner, once the matter ceased by the officers of the CGSGST Act, 2017, the same cannot be simultaneously put to another investigation by the officers appointed under section 3 of the CGSGST Act, 2017 in view of the express bar under section 6(2)(b). According to the counsel for the petitioner, the subject matter in both the proceedings is in-respect-of the alleged use of fake and fictitious invoices. Thus, the entire subsequent investigation and the proceedings drawn deserves to be quashed. 10. The counsel for the respondents No.2 to 4 opposing the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referring to the documents enclosed along with the writ petition submitted that from the perusal of the records in the course of investigation as of now the respondents have been able to detect the petitioner of having availed ineligible ITCs of approximately Rs. 60 crores and the said amount is likely to increase manifold in the course of further investigation taking into consideration the large number of bogus transactions that the petitioner-establishment have shown to have been made. 12. The further contention of the counsel for the respondents No.2 to 4 is that since the nature of offence now being investigated is entirely different than the proceedings drawn in the show cause notice or the proceedings pending before the State Author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le ITC credits. The magnitude of which detected by now is approximately Rs. 60 crores and with further investigation the amount is likely to increase manifold. 14. This Court does not find any substance in the arguments of the petitioner, when they say that the investigation and the proceedings now initiated is one, which hit by Section 6(2)(1)(b) of the CGST Act of 2017. What has also to be appreciated is the fact that there is a clear distinction between a proceeding drawn for the demand of tax evaded by the petitioner-establishment and the investigation be conducted by the Department of the DG, GST Intelligence Wings in respect of an offence committed by an establishment by way of using bogus and fake invoices and illegally avail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
