2020 (12) TMI 1118 - HC - GST

Jurisdiction - proper officer to issue SCN - argument canvassed is that the proper officer under the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 is the Joint Commissioner, Central GST, Delhi South Commissionerate, who not only issued summons to the writ applicant under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, but also granted the permission to search the business premises of the writ applicant on the basis of his reasonable belief - HELD THAT - Let Notice be issued to the respondents, returnable on 11th January 2021. Till the next date of hearing, the respondents Nos.2 and 6 respectively shall not take any coercive action against the writ applicant. Mr. Chetan Pandya, the learned counsel on record appearing for the writ applicant shall serve one copy of the entire paper book to Mr. Devang Vyas, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India so that appropriate instructions can be obtained and the Court can proceed with the hearing of the matter on the next date i.e. 11th January 2021.

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017

In this judgment, the petitioner, a sole proprietor of a proprietary firm, challenged the jurisdiction of the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad in issuing summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the proper officer under the CGST Act was the Joint Commissioner, Central GST, Delhi South Commissionerate, who had already initiated an investigation and granted permission to search the business premises. The petitioner argued that the Directorate General lacked jurisdiction to issue any summons for the same investigation. The counsel relied on the decisions of the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court to support the argument on jurisdictional issues.

The High Court issued a notice to the respondents, making it returnable on a specified date. The court directed that no coercive action should be taken against the petitioner until the next hearing. The respondents were to be served directly through email. The petitioner's counsel was instructed to provide a copy of the paper book to the Additional Solicitor General of India for appropriate instructions. The court expressed its intention to hear the matter finally on the next date as it involved a significant legal question. The court emphasized the importance of the issue raised and instructed to notify the matter prominently on the board for the next hearing.