Facts of the Case
- The
petitioners (tobacco manufacturers/exporters) were registered under GST
and engaged in manufacturing and export activities.
- Multiple
search operations, summons, and investigations were initiated by
various authorities including:
- CGST
Commissionerate (Gautam Buddh Nagar)
- DGGI
(Delhi, Kanpur, Ahmedabad, Ghaziabad units)
- The
petitioner’s bank account was provisionally attached under Section
83 and refund claims were withheld.
- Allegations
involved fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) and wrongful refund
claims.
- Several
proceedings, including show cause notices and summons, were issued
simultaneously by different authorities.
- Petitioners challenged parallel investigations and repeated summons as illegal and without jurisdiction.
Issues Involved
- Whether
multiple GST authorities can simultaneously investigate the same subject
matter against a taxpayer?
- Whether
Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act prohibits parallel proceedings by
different authorities?
- Whether
the CBEC Circular dated 05.10.2018 is binding on GST authorities?
- Whether
DGGI (with all-India jurisdiction) can override jurisdictional
commissionerates?
- Validity of repeated searches, summons, and investigations across multiple zones.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- Violation
of Section 6(2)(b): Once one authority initiates
proceedings, others cannot proceed on the same subject matter.
- Binding
nature of Circular: CBEC Circular (05.10.2018) mandates single
authority jurisdiction for investigation and adjudication.
- Jurisdiction
confined: Only the jurisdictional Commissionerate
should conduct entire proceedings (investigation → SCN → adjudication).
- Harassment
& multiplicity: Repeated summons and searches by
different agencies amount to abuse of power.
- No concept of “investigation” in Act: Only “proper officer” has authority; multiple agencies acting simultaneously is illegal.
Respondent’s Arguments
- All-India
Jurisdiction of DGGI: Certain officers (via Notification No.
14/2017) have pan-India powers.
- Nature
of fraud: Case involved a large-scale fake ITC scam
(₹300+ crore) spanning multiple states.
- Complex
network: Multiple entities and jurisdictions
justified involvement of specialized agencies like DGGI.
- Section
6(2)(b) limited: Applies only when jurisdiction is
territorial—not in cases involving nationwide fraud.
- Centralization achieved: All investigations were later consolidated under DGGI Ahmedabad Zonal Unit.
Court Findings / Judgment
- GST
is based on cooperative federalism, requiring coordination between
central and state authorities.
- Section
6 must be interpreted harmoniously with the structure of GST laws.
- Multiple
investigations initially may arise, especially in complex,
multi-state fraud cases.
- However,
duplication and overlap must be avoided to prevent harassment.
- The
Court noted that:
- Investigations
were subsequently centralized under one authority (DGGI
Ahmedabad).
- This resolved the grievance of multiple proceedings.
Important Clarifications by Court
- Section
6(2)(b) does not create an absolute bar in multi-jurisdictional fraud
cases.
- Authorities
with all-India jurisdiction (like DGGI) can investigate when the
matter spans multiple states.
- The CBEC
Circular must be followed, but practical realities of large-scale
fraud may justify coordinated multi-agency action.
- Final
objective must be single, consolidated investigation.
- GST framework emphasizes harmonization, not rigid territorial exclusivity.
Link to download the order - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2022:DHC:124-DB/NAC11012022CW40362021_161435.pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment