2022 (3) TMI 87 - HC - GST

Parallel enquiry in connection with a search and seizure - parallel enquiry one by the DGGI in Siliguri and other by the DGGI Eastern Zonal Unit Kolkata - HELD THAT - The first set of summons have been issued by the Senior Intelligence Officer who is located at Siliguri. It appears that the assessee had cooperated in the enquiry before the officer at Siliguri. The summons which is the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition is dated 5th December 2021 and has been issued by the DGGI (East) Kolkata. The appellants would contend that the DGGI (East) Kolkata is the Zonal Unit for the entire Eastern India and their jurisdiction would extend up to State of Sikkim and considering the matter which is involved summons have been issued to the respondents / writ petitioners by the DGGI (East) Kolkata. The respondents / writ petitioners were not justified in challenging the summons as a writ petition against the summons is not maintainable. However the ground on which the challenge has been thrown contending that the officer in Siliguri cannot parallelly proceed. Secondly it is submitted that the shareholder of the assessee was affected by Covid and the adjournment was sought for by producing a doctor s certificate. The appellants are of the view that a Centralised Agency exercising jurisdiction over the entire Eastern region spreading even outside the State would be the appropriate authority to conduct the investigation in the matter. If that is so to ensure that the investigation is done in a proper manner and there is no inconsistency and at the same time the writ petitioners/respondents also are not put to unnecessary hardship in the fitness of things all files of the Siliguri Unit of the DGGI have to be transferred to the Central unit viz. DGGI (East) Kolkata. Summons issued to the doctor - HELD THAT - The doctor who certified the health condition of the respondent no.2 has done so as a medical professional and in discharge of his duties as per the relevant statute. The medical certificate was produced to justify the request for adjournment. Therefore it would have been well open to the authorities not to accede to their request or grant a short adjournment. We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellants that the matter stood deferred by a month - In any event the appellant authorities are wholly unjustified in issuing summons to the doctor. Therefore the summons issued to Dr. P. D. Bhutia dated 15th February 2022 under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 is quashed. The writ appeals are partly allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to order passed by learned Single Judge regarding parallel enquiry by DGGI in Siliguri and Kolkata, legality of search and seizure operations, quashing of summons, jurisdiction of proper officer under Goods and Services Tax Act, maintainability of writ petition against summons, interference with medical professional's duties, transfer of files from Siliguri to Kolkata, cooperation with authorities, video conferencing for responding to summons, quashing of summons to doctor.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to Order on Parallel Enquiry:
The appeals challenged the order of the learned Single Judge regarding the parallel enquiry conducted by the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) in Siliguri and Kolkata. The respondents filed a writ petition seeking directions to halt the parallel enquiry, quash issued summons, and declare the search and seizure operation illegal. The Single Judge admitted the writ petition, observing the arguable case made by the respondents and stayed proceedings in Kolkata due to the Covid situation.

2. Jurisdiction of Proper Officer:
The Court analyzed the provisions of the Goods and Services Tax Act, specifically Section 70, empowering the proper officer to summon individuals for inquiries. The Act defines "proper officer" as the commissioner or an officer assigned by the commissioner. Section 6 deals with authorizing officers in specific circumstances, stating that no parallel proceedings can be initiated on the same subject matter by different proper officers.

3. Maintainability of Writ Petition Against Summons:
The appellants argued that challenging a summons through a writ petition is not maintainable. They contended that the DGGI (East), Kolkata had jurisdiction over the entire Eastern region, justifying the issuance of summons to the respondents. However, the respondents objected to parallel proceedings in Siliguri and Kolkata, citing unnecessary hardship and harassment.

4. Transfer of Files and Cooperation:
To streamline the investigation and avoid inconsistencies, the Court directed the transfer of all files from Siliguri to Kolkata for centralized handling. The respondents were instructed to cooperate with the authorities and attend hearings as summoned. The Court did not opine on the request for responding to summons via video conferencing, leaving it to the authorities' discretion.

5. Interference with Medical Professional:
The Court criticized the issuance of a summons to a doctor who provided a medical certificate justifying an adjournment. The summons to the doctor was deemed unjustified and quashed under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

6. Conclusion:
The writ appeals were partly allowed, setting aside the interim order and issuing directions for the transfer of files and cooperation with the authorities. The Court emphasized compliance with summons and disposed of both appeals and connected applications without costs.

This detailed analysis covers the various legal issues addressed in the judgment, including jurisdiction, maintainability of challenges, cooperation with authorities, and interference with professional duties.