2021 (3) TMI 858 - HC - GST

Seeking stay on the investigation - Jurisdiction of Delhi unit of DGGI - whether the respondents would raise an objection before the Allahabad High Court on the ground of territoriality - HELD THAT - A prima facie case at least at this stage that since investigation was commenced in the first instance by the Gautam Budh Nagar Commissionerate as far back on 19.03.2020 the other Intelligence units should have held their hands. A perusal of the circular dated 05.10.2018 is suggestive of the fact that once the Gautam Budh Commissionerate had taken steps to investigate the petitioner the other Intelligence Units should have held their hands; an approach which is both sensible and practical. The submission made by Mr. Prakash that there is a difference in the subject matter and therefore other units can also investigate to our minds at this juncture does not impress us. Therefore while we are inclined to give time to the respondents to file their reply to the captioned application within next two weeks for the moment no coercive measures will be taken against the petitioner. If in the interregnum investigation is necessitated in line with the circular dated 05.10.2018 it shall be carried out only by the Gautam Budh Nagar Commissionerate. The search officers will ensure that there is no invasion of privacy. List the application on 22.04.2021.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdictional overlap between Delhi High Court and Allahabad High Court regarding a writ petition.
2. Allegations of oppressive and repeated searches by multiple intelligence units.
3. Application for a stay on investigation and coercive actions by respondents.

Issue 1: Jurisdictional Overlap
The petitioner filed an application seeking a stay on the investigation, raising concerns about the overlap of issues between the current writ petition in Delhi High Court and a previous petition in Allahabad High Court. The Court suggested that the petitioner might be directed to pursue the matter in the Allahabad High Court, and the respondents were given time to consider raising objections based on territorial jurisdiction.

Issue 2: Allegations of Oppressive Searches
The petitioner alleged multiple oppressive searches conducted by various intelligence units, including the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence. These searches were carried out at both business premises and the residential premises of the petitioner's proprietor. The petitioner argued that the investigation should have been solely conducted by the Gautam Budh Nagar Commissionerate, citing a circular from the Central Board of Excise & Customs and relevant case laws from Gujarat and Himanshu Balram Gupta vs. Union of India.

Issue 3: Application for Stay on Coercive Actions
The petitioner sought a stay on coercive actions undertaken by the respondents following the issuance of a notice in the writ petition. The petitioner highlighted instances of invasion of privacy during the searches and emphasized the need for investigation to be carried out only by the Gautam Budh Nagar Commissionerate, as per the circular dated 05.10.2018. The Court, after hearing arguments from both parties, decided to grant time for the respondents to respond to the application and directed that no coercive measures should be taken against the petitioner in the meantime. The Court also emphasized the importance of ensuring no invasion of privacy during any future investigations.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues of jurisdictional overlap, allegations of oppressive searches, and the application for a stay on coercive actions, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and decisions made by the Delhi High Court.