Case Tittle | Gail Gas Ltd. VS Directorate General of GST Intelligence |
Court | Delhi High Court |
Honourable Judge | Justice S. Ravindra Bhat Justice A. K. Chawla |
Citation | 2018 (08) GSTPanacea 51 HC Delhi W.P. (C) No. 4891 Of 2018 |
Judgment Date | 28-August-2018 |
The petitioner’s grievance is two-fold. Firstly, they are concerned that very senior officers, specifically the Chief Operating Officer (COO) and the Deputy General Manager (DGM), have been summoned to respond to queries from the Director General of Goods and Services Tax (GST) Intelligence. This summons to high-ranking officials appears to be a significant issue for the petitioner.
Secondly, the petitioner is challenging the scope of the ongoing investigation. Originally, the investigation was focused solely on allegations of evasion of service tax liability involving specific entities: M/s Avinash EM Projects Pvt. Ltd., AEPL Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bhartiya Infra, and M/s TJAPL. This scrutiny was meant to cover the period from 2012-13 onwards. However, it appears that the investigation may have expanded beyond these initial parameters, which the petitioner argues is improper or unwarranted.
In summary, the petitioner is disputing both the involvement of their senior management in the investigation and the possible broadening of the inquiry beyond the original scope related to service tax evasion by the named companies.
In the legal matter at hand, the petitioner is raising two primary grievances related to an ongoing investigation by the Director General of Goods and Services Tax (GST) Intelligence.
1. Summoning of Senior Officers: The petitioner is concerned that highly senior officials from their organization, specifically the Chief Operating Officer (COO) and the Deputy General Manager (DGM), have been summoned to answer queries from the GST Intelligence Directorate. This raises concerns about the appropriateness and necessity of involving such senior personnel in the investigation.
2. Expansion of Investigation Scope: The original scope of the investigation was narrowly focused on allegations of evasion of service tax liabilities concerning specific entities—M/s Avinash EM Projects Pvt. Ltd., AEPL Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bhartiya Infra, and M/s TJAPL—for the period starting from 2012-13. However, the petitioner contends that the investigation’s scope has now been expanded. By a summons dated April 26, 2018, the petitioner is being asked to provide detailed information about vendors or contractors associated with GAIL Gas Ltd. from February 1, 2012. This expansion of the investigation’s scope beyond the original parameters is a point of contention for the petitioner.
In summary, the petitioner objects to the involvement of senior officials in the investigation and the broadening of the investigation’s focus to include information on vendors and contractors related to GAIL Gas Ltd. from an earlier date than initially specified.
The petitioner in this case has raised two primary grievances. First, they argue that high-ranking officials, including the Chief Operating Officer and the Deputy General Manager, of the petitioner company have been summoned to address inquiries made by the Director General of Goods and Services Tax (GST) Intelligence. Second, they contend that the scope of the investigation, initially limited to allegations of service tax evasion by specific companies (M/s Avinash EM Projects Pvt. Ltd., AEPL Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bhartiya Infra, and M/s TJAPL) for the fiscal period starting from 2012-13, has now been broadened. Specifically, the summons dated April 26, 2018, demands that the petitioner provide detailed information about the vendors or contractors of GAIL Gas Ltd. dating back to February 1, 2012.
In response to these grievances, the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, the respondent in this case, has filed a counter affidavit. Addressing the first grievance, the respondent argues that GAIL Gas Ltd. had voluntarily offered to provide answers to the queries. The respondent supports this claim by referencing statements in the counter affidavit and highlighting two documents, labeled as Annexures ‘E’ and ‘F’. Furthermore, the respondent suggests that if GAIL Gas Ltd. assigns officers with relevant knowledge about the transactions to respond to the inquiries, this would fulfill the respondent’s requirements.
In light of the recent statement, GAIL Gas Ltd. is required to notify the relevant authorities within two weeks about the specific officers who are well-versed with the records related to the inquiry concerning their contracts with M/s Avinash EM Projects Pvt. Ltd. This requirement follows GAIL Gas Ltd.’s previous responses indicating that no transactions had occurred with other entities.
Upon receiving this information, the Directorate General of GST Intelligence will arrange a suitable date, time, and location for a meeting. This meeting will involve the officers identified by GAIL Gas Ltd., who are expected to provide detailed responses to queries related to the ongoing investigation. The goal is to ensure that the officers most knowledgeable about the matter are present to address the concerns raised during the inquiry.
In the case concerning the summons issued on April 26, 2018, it appears that the scope of inquiry has been broadened beyond its initial parameters. Originally, the investigation was directed at M/s Avinash EM Projects Pvt. Ltd., as explicitly stated in the summons’ recital. Given this context, the Directorate General of GST Intelligence is required to limit its investigation to the transactions specifically between GAIL Gas Ltd. and M/s Avinash EM Projects Pvt. Ltd.
The court’s decision has resulted in the writ petition being disposed of based on these terms. Consequently, any pending applications related to this matter have also been resolved.
Download
PDF:
For
Reference Visit:
Read Another
Case Law:
GST Case Law: