TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... permissible under the provisions of Section 6(2)(1)(b). HELD THAT:- 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 availing ITCs, which the petitioner-establishment otherwise was ineligible. Petition dismissed. - WPT No. 42 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 25-2-2020 - Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy For Petitioner : Mr. Bishwa Ahluwalia, Advocate along with Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Advocate For State : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Dy. A.G. For respective Respondents : 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 inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the same to the different customers in different parts of the country. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner pays CGST/SGST/IGST on the goods purchased from the manufacturers and further pays CGST/SGST/IGST on the value of the supply of said goods made at the time of sale being made by the petitioner to other customers. 5. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, therefore, was entitled for the Input Tax Credit on the GST paid on the goods and service purchased. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the respondents initially commenced an investigation against the petitioner on the allegation of the petitioner allegedly purchasing goods from bogus dealers and thereby issuing fake invoices and a notice in this regard was issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s there is an express bar under Section 6(2)(1)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017. 8. The primary contention of the counsel for the petitioner was that once when a show cause notice proceeding initiated by the respondents dated 14.11.2019 is pending before the concerned authorities under the CGSGST, the respondents could not have issued or initiated another investigation or proceeding in-respect of the same subject matter, which otherwise is not permissible under the provisions of Section 6(2)(1)(b). Referring to the aforesaid provision of law, the petitioner submitted that the 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 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e concerned, it would not be hit by the provisions of Section 6(2)(1)(b). According to the counsel for the respondents No.2 to 4, the present investigation is more in respect of the defrauding of the government revenue committed by the petitioner in contravention to the provisions of the CGST Act and the nature of offence committed by the petitioner is one which false under the provisions of Section 132(1)(i) and in view of the provision of Section 132(5) of the said Act, the offence is also a cognizable offence and is a non-bailable offence as well. Thus, prayed for the rejection of the writ petition. 13. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of record and also taking note of the provisions of the Act what clearly reflects is that the initial issuance of the show cause notice and the proceedings drawn were in respect of the intrastate transactions made by the petitioner, wherein he had used fake and bogus invoices for the purpose of availing ineligible ITC, whereas subsequent to a secret information being received and further investigation being made, particularly in the course of a raid, which was conducted at the premises of the petitioner-estab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
