Swatik Ingot (P.) Ltd. VS Chief Commissioner Of GST

The petitioner received a summons from the Director General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence (DGGI), Bhubaneswar Zonal Unit, as detailed in Annexure-1. In response, the petitioner submitted a reply, and the case is currently awaiting further action in the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) jurisdiction.

Mr. T. K. Satapathy, representing the CGST, indicated that the case was initiated based on an Intelligence Report. During the investigation, several documents were seized from the petitioner for the purpose of this proceeding.

Simultaneously, proceedings under Section 70 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax (OGST) Act have been initiated, as described in Annexure-4. This proceeding is also ongoing, and the OGST Authority has requested additional documents from the petitioner.

In summary, the petitioner is involved in two parallel proceedings: one under the CGST jurisdiction and another under the OGST Act, with both cases requiring document submissions and ongoing investigations.

The petitioner is currently entangled in multiple legal proceedings related to Goods and Services Tax (GST) issues. The initial action began when the petitioner received a summons from the Director General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence (DGGI), Bhubaneswar Zonal Unit, as referenced in Annexure-1. In response to this summons, the petitioner filed a detailed reply, and the matter is now under consideration by the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) authorities.

Mr. T. K. Satapathy, the counsel representing the CGST, has clarified that the proceedings against the petitioner were initiated based on an Intelligence Report. As part of this investigation, various documents have been seized from the petitioner, which are crucial for the ongoing CGST inquiry.

At the same time, the Odisha Goods and Services Tax (OGST) Authority has also initiated proceedings against the petitioner under Section 70 of the OGST Act, as outlined in Annexure-4. This OGST proceeding is separate but concurrent with the CGST case. The OGST Authority has requested additional documentation from the petitioner to support their investigation.

In summary, the petitioner is facing two parallel proceedings involving the CGST and OGST authorities. Both proceedings are investigating the petitioner’s GST-related activities, with each authority requiring various documents and information to proceed further.

The petitioner is facing a significant issue related to the ongoing GST investigations by both the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Authority and the Odisha Goods and Services Tax (OGST) Authority. Specifically, the petitioner’s grievance centers on their inability to provide certain documents requested by the OGST Authority. This difficulty arises because the documents in question have been seized by the CGST Authority as part of its own investigation.

Mr. T. K. Satapathy, the learned counsel for the CGST, has addressed this issue by acknowledging that, due to the ongoing nature of the CGST proceedings, the original documents cannot be returned to the petitioner at this time. However, he has clarified that the petitioner can still obtain copies of these documents. To do so, the petitioner must formally request copies, and the CGST Authority will provide them in accordance with the applicable legal procedures.

In summary, the petitioner is currently unable to fulfill the OGST Authority’s request for documents because these documents are held by the CGST Authority. Despite this, Mr. Satapathy has assured that the petitioner can obtain copies of the seized documents if they make a formal application for them.

In light of the circumstances surrounding the petitioner’s case, the writ petition has been resolved with specific directives. The court has issued an order instructing the petitioner to formally apply for copies of the documents they need from the CGST Authority. This application must be submitted within 15 days from the date of the order.

Upon receiving the application, the CGST Authority is required to provide the requested copies of the documents within three weeks from the date of the petitioner’s application. This measure aims to facilitate the petitioner’s ability to respond to the OGST Authority’s requests, given that the original documents are currently held by the CGST Authority.

Additionally, the petitioner is directed to fully cooperate with both the CGST and OGST Authorities to ensure the timely and efficient resolution of the ongoing proceedings.

The writ petition is therefore disposed of with these instructions. The court has also ordered that an urgent certified copy of this order be provided in accordance with the relevant rules. Furthermore, free copies of the order are to be distributed to the learned counsel representing both the CGST and OGST Authorities.