Himanshu Balaram Gupta VS Union of India

Certainly! Here’s a comprehensive summary:

Ms. Anjali Manish, with the assistance of Mr. Chetan Pandya, is representing the writ applicant in this case. The writ applicant is the sole proprietor of a business named M/s. S. H. Exports, which is based in New Delhi. This proprietary concern is officially registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act of 2017 (CGST Act, 2017). The business falls under the jurisdiction of the Central Excise and Service Tax, Central Tax Delhi South.

The case involves legal proceedings concerning the business’s compliance with or administration under the CGST Act, 2017. Details of the specific issues or claims made in the writ have not been provided in the excerpt, but the matter is being handled with the assistance of legal counsel.

The office of the Delhi South Commissionerate has initiated an investigation into the affairs of the writ applicant, who operates a proprietary firm named M/s. S. H. Exports, based in New Delhi. This investigation has included the issuance of summons under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act, 2017) by the Delhi South Commissionerate. The writ applicant has complied with these earlier summons by providing various documents, which have been taken into custody by the Commissionerate.

The writ application in question arises from a new summons received by the writ applicant from the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGSTI), Zonal Unit Ahmedabad, also under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017. The core argument presented by the writ applicant’s counsel is that the appropriate authority for such matters, as per the CGST Act, is the Joint Commissioner of Central GST, Delhi South Commissionerate. This Joint Commissioner was responsible not only for issuing the initial summons but also for authorizing a search of the writ applicant’s business premises based on reasonable belief.

The counsel contends that the DGSTI, Zonal Unit Ahmedabad, should not have issued the additional summons pertaining to the same investigation, as it does not have jurisdiction over this matter. The argument is based on the premise that the jurisdiction for such investigations and the issuance of summons lies with the Delhi South Commissionerate, and any action taken by a different authority like the DGSTI is outside the proper jurisdiction. Consequently, the counsel argues that the DGSTI lacks the authority to issue summons in this context.

In the ongoing legal matter concerning the writ applicant, the primary contention centers on the jurisdictional authority of the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGSTI), Zonal Unit Ahmedabad, to issue summons under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act, 2017). The crux of the argument is that an authority that does not possess the jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry or investigation should not be able to issue summons under this section. The learned counsel for the writ applicant has bolstered this argument by referencing two key legal precedents: the Bombay High Court’s decision in *Safi Khan Khehar vs. State of Maharashtra* (2019 (20) GSTL 513 (Bom)) and the Supreme Court’s ruling in *Commissioner of Customs vs. Sayed Ali* ((2011) 3 SCC 537). These cases are cited to emphasize that only the appropriate authority, which has jurisdiction over the investigation, can issue summons, and any deviation from this principle constitutes an overreach of power.

In light of these submissions, the court has decided to issue a notice to the respondents, setting a return date for 11th January 2021. The order includes a stay on any coercive actions against the writ applicant by respondents Nos. 2 and 6 until the next hearing. The respondents are to be served notice directly via email. Additionally, Mr. Chetan Pandya, the counsel for the writ applicant, is directed to provide a copy of the entire paper book to Mr. Devang Vyas, the Additional Solicitor General of India, to facilitate the acquisition of necessary instructions. This preparation is intended to ensure that the court can proceed with a detailed and final consideration of the matter on the scheduled date, focusing on the legal question of jurisdictional authority.

In the ongoing legal proceedings involving the writ applicant, a significant issue has been raised concerning the jurisdiction of the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGSTI), Zonal Unit Ahmedabad, in relation to issuing summons under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act, 2017). The writ applicant contends that only an authority with the appropriate jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry or investigation under the CGST Act, 2017, should be empowered to issue such summons. This argument is supported by references to prior legal precedents, including a decision by the Bombay High Court in *Safi Khan Khehar vs. State of Maharashtra* (2019 (20) GSTL 513 (Bom)) and a ruling by the Supreme Court in *Commissioner of Customs vs. Sayed Ali* ((2011) 3 SCC 537). These cases illustrate that jurisdictional boundaries must be respected, and an authority without the proper jurisdictional mandate cannot issue summons for investigations already under the purview of another authority.

In response to these contentions, the court has scheduled a return date for the matter on 11th January 2021. The court has instructed that, until this date, no coercive actions be taken against the writ applicant by respondents Nos. 2 and 6. The respondents will be notified directly via email. Additionally, Mr. Chetan Pandya, representing the writ applicant, is required to provide one copy of the entire paper book to Mr. Devang Vyas, the Additional Solicitor General of India, to ensure that appropriate instructions are obtained. The court intends to address this matter as a clear question of law during the next hearing. To prioritize the resolution of this issue, the court has directed that the matter be placed at the top of the Board for consideration on the returnable date. This ensures that the court can promptly and thoroughly address the jurisdictional arguments and related legal questions raised by the writ applicant.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: