9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 205 - DSC - GSTTerritorial jurisdiction of Hon'ble Court at Rohtak - Investigation conducted by the DGGI, Rohtak - All alleged Firms/ Companies are 'Registered' under the CGST Act, 2017 at 'Delhi' and not in Haryana / Rohtak - the alleged Firms/ Companies have NOT 'Issued' NOR 'Received' any alleged invoices within the Territorial Jurisdiction of the District Courts, Rohtak - HELD THAT - Remand of the Applicant was not obtained by the Department from this Hon'ble Court on the basis of any allegation based on any Firm/ Company Registered within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court - admittedly, the alleged Firms/ Companies have NOT 'Issued' NOR 'Received' any alleged invoices within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. It is therefore clear that this Hon'ble Court lacks the Territorial Jurisdiction in the present case and therefore the Remand of the Applicant is required to be Transited to the Court of Appropriate Jurisdiction i.e., the Court of Ld. C.M.M, New Delhi, which exercises the Territorial Jurisdiction over the Firms/ Companies', which are Registered in Delhi - Rather, given the abovesaid facts, even if Charge Sheet/ Complaint is filed before this Hon'ble Court at Rohtak, Haryana, this Hon'ble Court would not be Jurisdictionally Competent to take COGNIZANCE of the Charge Sheet/Complaint and the same would have to be returned to the Department for filing before a Court of Competent Territorial Jurisdiction i.e., the Court of Ld. C.M.M, New Delhi.
Issues:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the court in a case involving registration of firms/companies in Delhi. 2. Praying for transit of the remand of the applicant to the Court of Ld. C.M.M, New Delhi. 3. Prejudice to the Department in case the application is allowed. 4. Comparison with similar circumstances in other cases. Analysis: Issue 1 - Territorial Jurisdiction: The applicant filed a Miscellaneous Application under Section 179 Cr.P.C. seeking transit of the remand to the Court of Ld. C.M.M, New Delhi, as the alleged firms/companies are registered in Delhi, falling outside the territorial jurisdiction of the present court. The applicant argued that no offense was committed within the jurisdiction of the current court, as all alleged invoices were issued or received in Delhi. The court was urged to recognize its lack of territorial jurisdiction and transit the remand accordingly. Issue 2 - Transit of Remand: The applicant highlighted that the Department/DGGI, being a central body, can investigate offenses under the CGST Act across India. However, the charge sheet/complaint must be filed before a court of competent territorial jurisdiction. Citing precedents, the applicant emphasized the need to transit the remand to the Court of Ld. C.M.M, New Delhi, as it holds the appropriate territorial jurisdiction over the registered firms/companies in Delhi. Issue 3 - Prejudice to the Department: The applicant contended that allowing the transit of the remand would not prejudice the Department. It was argued that since the Court of Ld. C.M.M, New Delhi, is the court of appropriate territorial jurisdiction under Section 179 Cr.P.C, transiting the remand to Delhi would align with legal requirements and ensure proper adjudication of the case. Issue 4 - Comparison with Similar Cases: The applicant drew parallels with similar cases where the courts recognized the importance of territorial jurisdiction concerning the registration of firms/companies. Orders from past cases, such as DGGI Vs Kwality and Daman Thukral Vs DGGI, highlighted the significance of filing complaints before courts with the relevant territorial jurisdiction, even if the investigating body operates centrally. These comparisons underscored the necessity of adhering to jurisdictional principles for fair legal proceedings. In conclusion, the judgment emphasized the critical aspect of territorial jurisdiction in legal proceedings, particularly concerning offenses related to registered firms/companies. The court was urged to transit the remand to the Court of Ld. C.M.M, New Delhi, to ensure alignment with the appropriate territorial jurisdiction and uphold the principles of fair adjudication.
|
