2018 (9) TMI 853 - HC - Service Tax

Prayer for carrying out common investigations - separate investigation at the local levels have been carried out by the authorities against the units at Ahmedabad, Chandigarh, Chennai and Pune. - case of Revenue is that petitioner is not cooperating in the investigation and providing necessary documents - Held that - It is evident that the nature of investigations carried out in the M/s. Lemon Tree Hotels Ltd. resulted in material and information gathering which are of a different kind. Although the petitioner seeks general directions that common investigations be carried out, the Court is of the opinion that grant of such relief at this stage would not be expedient - Instead, the respondents shall, at a later stage of the investigation, nominate a senior officer or Commissioner to review the evidence gathered in order to purely discern if common approach is essential, after which the investigations may be concluded and the Show Cause Notices (SCNs) issued by appropriate competent authorities. In view of the pendency of investigation and having regard to the interim order made, it is clarified that the period during which the said order operated, i.e. from 08.03.2018 till date shall be excluded from computing the period of limitation for issuing the Show Cause Notices. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Request for common investigations by the petitioner due to inconveniences caused by separate investigations at different locations.
2. Dispute regarding cooperation in investigations by the petitioner as per the letter addressed to the Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax.
3. Consideration of the nature of investigations and evidence gathered in M/s. Lemon Tree Hotels Ltd. for determining the necessity of a common approach.
4. Decision on centralizing the adjudication of Show Cause Notices (SCNs) issued by competent authorities in different zones to be handled by one officer in Delhi.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought directions for common investigations due to inconveniences caused by separate local investigations conducted at different locations. The Court noted that separate investigations had been carried out at Ahmedabad, Chandigarh, Chennai, and Pune, leading to the petitioner's claim of being inconvenienced.

2. The Revenue contended that the petitioner was not cooperating in the investigations as per a letter addressed to the Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax. The letter highlighted the petitioner's refusal to provide records citing the High Court's order and a request for a common investigator, resulting in a stalemate in the investigations.

3. The Court examined the nature of investigations in M/s. Lemon Tree Hotels Ltd. and the information gathered, determining that the evidence collected was of a different kind. While the petitioner sought general directions for common investigations, the Court deemed it inappropriate at that stage. Instead, it was decided that a senior officer or Commissioner would review the evidence later to ascertain if a common approach was necessary before concluding the investigations and issuing Show Cause Notices (SCNs).

4. Regarding the centralization of adjudication of SCNs, the Court ordered that after the issuance of SCNs by competent authorities in different zones, the Chief Commissioners of Central Goods and Services Tax would pass an order centralizing the adjudication to be handled by one competent officer in Delhi. This officer would be empowered to deal with all SCNs from different zones, streamlining the adjudication process.

In conclusion, the Court clarified that the period during which the interim order operated would be excluded from computing the limitation period for issuing SCNs. All rights and contentions of the parties were reserved, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly.