Case Tittle | St Thomas Mount Cim Pallavaram Cantonment Board VS The Additional Director Government of India, Directorate General of Gst Intelligence |
Court | Madras High Court |
Honourable Judge | Justice S. Vaidyanathan Justice C. Saravanan |
Citation | 2022 (11) GSTPanacea 721 HC Madras W.A. No. 2524 of 2022 |
Judgment Date | 12-November-2022 |
In the writ petition, the appellant/writ petitioner, who had received summons dated June 16, 2022, from the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, Madurai Regional Unit, sought a mandamus to prevent the respondents from proceeding with the GST investigation under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The appellant contended that both before the learned Single Judge and before the appellate court, their location and all their properties are situated in Chennai. Consequently, the appellant argued that there is no territorial nexus between them and the respondent officers based in Coimbatore or Madurai.
Learned Standing counsel for the respondent would submit that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is well-reasoned and does not call for any interference and therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ appeal That apart, it is submitted that the issue is covered by the order of this Court dated 17.06.2022 in W.P. No. 12583 of 2020 etc ( M/s. Reddington (India) Pvt. Limited V. The Additional Director General
The Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is well-reasoned and does not call for any interference and therefore prays for the dismissal of the writ appeal further submitting that the issue is covered by the order of this Court dated 17.06.2022 in W.P. No. 12583 of 2020 etc (M/s. Reddington (India) Pvt. Limited V. The Additional Director General, Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, Chennai Zonal Unit) rendered by one of us (CSNJ) and therefore the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that respondents 1 and 2 in this writ appeal, who are also respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition, are competent to summon the appellant/writ petitioner.
In the current legal matter, we have thoroughly examined the arguments presented by both the learned counsel representing the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.
Our assessment leads us to the conclusion that while the officer from the Intelligence Department of the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) possesses the authority to investigate the appellant’s affairs, it is crucial to determine the proper jurisdiction for such an investigation. Specifically, the competent officer for conducting this investigation should be the one stationed in Chennai, which is within the jurisdiction where the appellant is located. This conclusion is drawn to ensure that the investigation adheres to the appropriate procedural and jurisdictional guidelines.
The Court has reviewed the arguments presented by both the appellant’s counsel and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents. After careful consideration, the Court has determined that although the officer from the Intelligence Department of the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence is authorized to investigate the appellant’s matters, the investigation should be conducted by the officer specifically stationed in Chennai, which is the jurisdiction where the appellant is based.
Given this context, the Court has decided to grant the writ appeal. Consequently, the writ appeal is allowed with an instruction for the respondents to assign an officer located in Chennai to carry out the investigation into the appellant’s affairs.
The court has reviewed the arguments presented by both the appellant’s counsel and the Standing Counsel representing the respondents. It has been determined that while the Intelligence Department of the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence holds the authority to investigate the appellant’s case, the investigation must be conducted by an officer stationed in Chennai, where the appellant’s operations are based.
Given this jurisdictional requirement, the court has decided to grant the writ appeal. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, and the respondents are directed to assign an officer located in Chennai to carry out the investigation into the appellant’s affairs. This investigation will focus on determining whether there has been any tax evasion in accordance with the relevant GST laws of 2017. The decision is made without imposing any costs.
Download
PDF:
For
Reference Visit:
Read Another
Case Law:
GST Case
Law: