9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, the question of launching of prosecution, which is in many cases is a natural extension of an investigation, still remains to be decided and if it were to be assumed that an investigation is deemed to be concluded on issuance of Show Cause Notice and that the order sheet/note sheet recorded in the case file were to be disclosed, the person against whom prosecution is proposed to be launched by the department would gain an unfair advantage. Mere issuance of SCN does not mean that the process of investigation has been concluded and a final decision has been arrived at, rather, it is only one of the steps to arrive at a final decision: As such any disclosure of information at this stage, as sought for by the petitioner, would impede the process of investigation which can be deemed to be complete only after the final decision/adjudication about the liability of the person under investigation has been made after the matter has gone through all the stages of appeals and revisions and a final decision about prosecuting or not prosecuting such person has been taken by the competent authority. This Court is not inclined to entertain the prayers of the Petitioners. Accordingly, thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... swar by dint of the search warrant no. 21/2019-20 dated 14.06.2019 issued by the Additional Director, DGGI, inspected under sub- section (1) search under sub-section (2) of Section 67 of the GST Act at the place of business of the Petitioner. By exercising power u/s. 67(2) of the GST Act the Intelligence Officer of DGGI seized the books of accounts and other documents of the Petitioner and issued an order of seizure in FORM GST INS-02 along with Panchanama on the very same day i.e., 14.06.2019. 6. After the search and seizure, summons was issued from time to time to the Petitioner, and in response to which the Petitioner appeared before the Intelligence Officer of DGGI and cooperated in the investigation proceeding in every possible manner. 7. It was only after the investigation was completed by the Intelligence Officers of DGGI, the Asst. Director of the DGGI issued two show cause notices on 30.09.2021 and 18.10.2021 under the GST Act and Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 (Service Tax) respectively to the Petitioner and called upon the Petitioner to show cause to the Assistant Commissioner, Central Tax Central Excise, Bhubaneswar - II Division, Bhubaneswar before whom the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion team to search the premises. The Intelligence Officers used the search warrant against the Petitioner to conduct a search and seizure operation because it is a statutory requirement that empowers them to perform a certain action; but what seems from the language of the Opp. Party No. 1 is that a search warrant is only an administrative/internal official requirement, and not a statutory requirement; if that would be so, then the Intelligence Officers have no power and jurisdiction to conduct search and seizure operation against the Petitioner based on an administrative/internal official document. Therefore, the impugned rejection letter is illogical, erroneous, and absurd. (c) When a particular document is used against a person in any proceeding, on participation, if that person requested the authorities to provide him such document, then the authorities are duty bound to provide the same to that person concerned. In the present case, in response to the summons issued after the search and seizure, the Petitioner appeared before the Intelligence Officers, cooperated in the investigation, and finally, only after completion of the investigation, the show cause notices were is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . (g) In every quasi-judicial proceeding, there is a point of initiation and point of completion of a particular proceeding. Similarly, Section 67 of the GST Act, under which the Intelligence Officers of DGGI conducted search and seizure operation at the Petitioner's place of business commenced at 11.30 hrs. on 14.06.2019 and was concluded at 15.00 hrs. on 14.06.2019. Section 67 of the GST Act confines to the power of inspection, search and seizure and when the Intelligence Officer himself declared in the Panchanama under Annexure- 2 that the search operation concluded at 15.00 hrs. on 14.06.2019 then no proceeding of under Section 67 of the GST Act is pending against the Petitioner. (h) After completion of search and seizure under Section 67 of the GST Act, further investigation was carried out by the Intelligence Officers of DGGI under Section 70 of the GST Act and finally on completion of such investigation the Asst. Director of DGGI issued two show cause notices under Annexures 3 4 and called upon the Petitioner to show cause to the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner, Central Tax Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Division, Bhubaneswar before whom the cases are pending ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... principles of natural justice. (l) In the instant case the search and seizure proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner under the provisions of GST Act and Service Tax Act, and the Petitioner under Annexure - 5 requested the Opp. Party No. 1 to provide him the certified copy of the order sheets maintained in connection with that particular search and seizure proceeding and in response to which the Opp. Party No. 1 said in his rejection letter under Annexure-7 that the order sheet is an internal official document which is not disclosed/provided publicly which sounds irrational, irresponsible, and absurd, and needs kind interference of this Court. (m) From the above-quoted provisions of the Evidence Act, it is abundantly clear that an order sheet is not an internal official document and there is nothing called an internal official document , a document can be a public document or a private document and the Petitioner has every right to obtain the certified copy of the order sheet. Therefore, the Opp. Party No.1's claim that order sheets are internal official documents related to the investigation, which are not disclosed/provided publicly is fictitious and im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ality and disclosing the information regarding internal official documents/ information's would impede the process of investigation. (e) The search warrant had been shown to the assessee/officials of M/s Jagannathdham Superstructures Pvt. Ltd., and it had been duly acknowledged with his signature on the date of search. During the search, a Panchanama had been drawn and it had also been acknowledged by the persons concerned. There is no strict rule or regulation that the copies of the search warrant ought to be given to the persons occupying the premises during the search. It would be sufficient if the search warrant had been shown to such persons before the search of the premises is undertaken. For better appreciation of the facts of the case, the provisions of the Clause 55(m) of the Central Excise Intelligence and Investigation Manual. IV. COURT S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Petitioner has to be provided a copy of the search warrant in order to enable the investigation team to search the premises. The Intelligence Officers used the search warrant against the Petitioner to conduct a search and seizure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estigation is initiated. Disclosure of such information would reveal the identity of the source of information/informant and the nature of information which may affect prejudicially to the informant and on future investigations. Moreover, the order sheet/note sheet sought from an investigation file may contain information pertaining to a third party against whom an investigation may be ongoing or actively under consideration and any disclosure of such information would jeopardize the investigation against such third entity. 18. With respect to the aforesaid discussion, this Court is not inclined to entertain the prayers of the Petitioners. Accordingly, this Court hereby allows the rejection letters issued by the Deputy Director, DGGI (Opposite Party No.1), refusing to grant certified copies of the order sheet/note sheet and search warrant. Moreover, this Court is of the opinion that the show-cause notices issued by the Deputy Director, DGGI for non-payment of GST on Works Contract Services have been issued in accordance with law. 19. The W.P.(C) No.25400 of 2022 is, accordingly, dismissed. 20. Interim order dated 11.01.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.25400 of 2022 stands vacat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
