9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e period from 1 July 2017 till 31 March 2021. As informed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, such investigation is in regard to the fraudulent ITC. Insofar as the investigation being resorted under the MGST Act by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is concerned, it is in respect of the period from 1 April 2021 to 4 October 2023. This has been clarified by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (INV-02), Investigation-A, Mumbai, vide letter dated 7 October 2023 as addressed to the petitioners. It appears that although the petitioners were asked to furnish documents for the period from 1 July 2017 till 31 March 2021, the investigation, as informed to the petitioners, under the MGST Act would be for the period from 1 April 2021 to 4 October 2023. In such conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pleader. P.C.: 1. We have heard Mr. Setalvad, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner on both these petitions, Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Ms. Chavan, learned Additional Government Pleader, for the State - respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 2. Although the petitioners in these petitions are two different entities, the cause of action being pursued and the prayers as made, are common. Illustratively, we note the prayers as made in the Writ Petition no. 29186 of 2023 which read thus:- A) That this Hon ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order, Direction to respondent no. 3 Authority that is Assistant Commissioner of State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... where a proper officer under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act has initiated any proceedings on a subject matter, no proceedings shall be initiated by the proper officer under the MGST Act on the same subject matter. 4. To consider such contention as raised on behalf of the petitioners, with the assistance of Mr. Setalvad, we have perused the paper book of both these petitions. We find that under the CGST Act proceedings are initiated against the petitioner, however, it clearly appears that the subject matter of such investigation is in respect of the period from 1 July 2017 till 31 March 2021. As informed by Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, such investigation is in regard to the fraudulent ITC. Insofar as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e MGST Act is in respect of illegal refunds as sought by the petitioners. 6. Thus, considering the documents on record and the contentions as raised, we are unable to accept Mr. Setalvad s contention that the provisions of Section 6(2)(b) of the MGST Act, in any manner, are attracted in the facts of the present case. 7. In so far as Mr. Setalvad s contention that under the MGST Act invoking the provisions of Section 69, there is a likelihood of arrest of the proprietor of the petitioner under Section 69 of the MGST Act. In our opinion, in this regard, the petitioners are not remediless as the petitioners can invoke provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, as in the present proceedings no criminal cause of action can be subject matter of ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
