M/s Stalwart Alloys India Private Limited V. Union of India

CWP/1661/2022

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Stalwart Alloys India Private Limited, a manufacturer based in Haryana, which faced multiple inquiries by the Haryana State Tax Department and the Director General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) regarding the wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC). The petitioner contested the jurisdiction and the transfer of proceedings to the DGGI, arguing that the State Tax Officer should retain control over the investigation. The court examined the legal framework of the GST Act, particularly focusing on the roles and powers of State and Central tax authorities in conducting investigations and initiating proceedings under the GST law.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 816557 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Indo International Tobacco Limited vs Vivek Prasad, Additional Director General, DGGI and others, Unique Realtors (P) Limited and another vs Union of India and others, Vaibhavi Construction vs Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes, Vivek Narsaria vs State of Jharkhand
• Laws Referred To: Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: R VENKATARAMAN; SOURABH GOEL; TANISHA PESHAWARIA
• Assessee Lawyers: SANDEEP GOYAL
• Keywords: Central Tax; Fraudulent ITC; Goods and Services Tax; Input tax credit; Search and seizure; State tax
• Section: 72; 74(1); 70; 6(2)(b)

Judgement Text

" CWP No. 1661 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 1. CWP No. 1661 of 2022 (O&M) M/s Stalwart Alloys India Union of India and others 2. CWP No. 7411 of 2023 (O&M) M/s Stalwart Alloys India Private Limited Union of India and others CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. Venkataraman, Assistant Solicitor General of India (through Video Conferencing) assist Mr. Sourabh Goel, Senior Standing Counsel, Ms. Shivani Sahni, Advocate, Ms. Geetika Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Anju Bansal, Advocate, for respondent nos. 1, 4, 5, 7 and 14 in CWP No. 1661/2022 and for respondent nos. 3 and 5 in CWP No. 7411/2023. Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. 1. The brief facts which have come on record are that the petitioner is a manufacturer of Lead alloys, Lead pure in shape of ingots, lead su red lead in power form and is operating in the State of Haryana. 2. An enquiry was initiated by the Haryana State Tax Department with regard to wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (hereinafter to be referred as CWP No. 1661 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 1661 of 2022 (O&M) M/s Stalwart Alloys India Private Limited Versus Union of India and others CWP No. 7411 of 2023 (O&M) M/s Stalwart Alloys India Private Limited Versus Union of India and others CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. Venkataraman, Assistant Solicitor General of India (through Video Conferencing) assist Mr. Sourabh Goel, Senior Standing Counsel, Ms. Shivani Sahni, Advocate, Ms. Geetika Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Anju Bansal, Advocate, for respondent nos. 1, 4, 5, 7 and 14 in CWP No. 1661/2022 and for respondent nos. 3 and 5 in CWP No. 7411/2023. Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. The brief facts which have come on record are that the petitioner is a manufacturer of Lead alloys, Lead pure in shape of ingots, lead su red lead in power form and is operating in the State of Haryana. An enquiry was initiated by the Haryana State Tax Department with regard to wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (hereinafter to be referred as -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 23.07.2024 Date of Decision : 28.08.2024 …Petitioner …Respondents …Petitioner …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. Venkataraman, Assistant Solicitor General of India (through Video Conferencing) assisted by Mr. Sourabh Goel, Senior Standing Counsel, Ms. Shivani Sahni, Advocate, Ms. Geetika Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Anju Bansal, Advocate, for respondent nos. 1, 4, 5, 7 and 14 in CWP No. 1661/2022 and for respondent nos. 3 and 5 Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. The brief facts which have come on record are that the petitioner is a manufacturer of Lead alloys, Lead pure in shape of ingots, lead sub-oxide and red lead in power form and is operating in the State of Haryana. An enquiry was initiated by the Haryana State Tax Department with regard to wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (hereinafter to be referred as The brief facts which have come on record are that the petitioner is oxide and An enquiry was initiated by the Haryana State Tax Department with regard to wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (hereinafter to be referred as VARINDER SINGH 2024.08.29 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment CWP No. 1661 of 2022 “ITC”) against the petitione Aggrieved by multiple enquires, the petitioner preferred CWP No. 21658 of 2019, which was disposed of on 23.01.2020 and the respondents were directed to take a decision in this regard for conducting proceedi for the period of 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018. In pursuance thereto, the State Government GST Department decided to take up the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner vide order dated 08.07.2020 and the record including ledger account, sales and purchase invoices and proof of payment etc. were requisitioned upto 31.01.2021. 3. The Director General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (hereinafter to be referred as “DGGI”), conducted search and seizure proceedings and a therein that records Government authorities and the visitor officers of the DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit, verified the facts from the State Taxation Officer, who co taken all the documents on record relating to the period from July 2019 to January 2021. With reference to the earlier period from 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 also the record was seized in the search conducted by the State GST authorities. A notice under Section 74 (1) of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was also issued for the tax period from 01.07.2017 to 21.07.2019 to the petitioner. The issue of fraudulent availment of ITC is pending with the State authorities. 4. Respondent no. 14 reply. In his reply, he has stated that intelligence was gathered in regard to a CWP No. 1661 of 2022 against the petitioner company and also by multiple DGGI Zonal Units. Aggrieved by multiple enquires, the petitioner preferred CWP No. 21658 of 2019, which was disposed of on 23.01.2020 and the respondents were directed to take a decision in this regard for conducting proceedi for the period of 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018. In pursuance thereto, the State Government GST Department decided to take up the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner vide order dated 08.07.2020 and the record including unt, sales and purchase invoices and proof of payment etc. were requisitioned upto 31.01.2021. The Director General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (hereinafter to be referred as “DGGI”), conducted search and seizure proceedings and a panchnama was also drawn on 19.02.2021. It was mentioned therein that records/ documents have already been seized by the State Government authorities and the visitor officers of the DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit, verified the facts from the State Taxation Officer, who co taken all the documents on record relating to the period from July 2019 to January 2021. With reference to the earlier period from 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 also the record was seized in the search conducted by the State GST . A notice under Section 74 (1) of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was also issued for the tax period from 01.07.2017 to 21.07.2019 . The issue of fraudulent availment of ITC is pending with the State authorities. Respondent no. 14 – Senior Intelligence Officer filed a short written reply. In his reply, he has stated that intelligence was gathered in regard to a -2- r company and also by multiple DGGI Zonal Units. Aggrieved by multiple enquires, the petitioner preferred CWP No. 21658 of 2019, which was disposed of on 23.01.2020 and the respondents were directed to take a decision in this regard for conducting proceedings by one agency alone for the period of 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018. In pursuance thereto, the State Government GST Department decided to take up the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner vide order dated 08.07.2020 and the record including unt, sales and purchase invoices and proof of payment etc. were The Director General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (hereinafter to be referred as “DGGI”), conducted search and seizure was also drawn on 19.02.2021. It was mentioned documents have already been seized by the State Government authorities and the visitor officers of the DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit, verified the facts from the State Taxation Officer, who confirmed about having taken all the documents on record relating to the period from July 2019 to January 2021. With reference to the earlier period from 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 also the record was seized in the search conducted by the State GST . A notice under Section 74 (1) of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was also issued for the tax period from 01.07.2017 to 21.07.2019 . The issue of fraudulent availment of ITC is pending with the Senior Intelligence Officer filed a short written reply. In his reply, he has stated that intelligence was gathered in regard to a r company and also by multiple DGGI Zonal Units. Aggrieved by multiple enquires, the petitioner preferred CWP No. 21658 of 2019, which was disposed of on 23.01.2020 and the respondents were directed to ngs by one agency alone for the period of 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018. In pursuance thereto, the State Government GST Department decided to take up the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner vide order dated 08.07.2020 and the record including unt, sales and purchase invoices and proof of payment etc. were The Director General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (hereinafter to be referred as “DGGI”), conducted search and seizure was also drawn on 19.02.2021. It was mentioned documents have already been seized by the State Government authorities and the visitor officers of the DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit, nfirmed about having taken all the documents on record relating to the period from July 2019 to January 2021. With reference to the earlier period from 01.07.2017 to 31.12.2018 also the record was seized in the search conducted by the State GST . A notice under Section 74 (1) of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was also issued for the tax period from 01.07.2017 to 21.07.2019 . The issue of fraudulent availment of ITC is pending with the Senior Intelligence Officer filed a short written reply. In his reply, he has stated that intelligence was gathered in regard to a VARINDER SINGH 2024.08.29 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment CWP No. 1661 of 2022 racket involved in passing of ITC to various beneficiaries without supply of any underlying goods/ servic conducted at the registered addresses of eight suspicious suppliers, who were supplying goods to the petitioner existent/ non-operational at their registered pl were further conducted with regard to creation of fake firms and mastermind behind it emerged, namely, Anant Rastogi, who has created and operated the above mentioned fake firms through which inadmissible ITC was passed on t various beneficiaries including M/s Stalwart Alloys India Limited during the period from September 2019 to February 2021. Finally Anant Rastogi was apprehended and his statement was recorded under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 and he confessed of crea availment and passing of ITC to various beneficiaries including the petitioner company. The amount was deposited by the said beneficiaries in the account of the fake/ non-existent firms and the amount was return involved companies after retention of his own commission. company who stated to be actively involved with Anant Rastogi. 5. Acting on intelligence gathered, search was again conducted at the registered premises of the petitioner premises was also searched whereupon the officers were informed that records of the petitioner- Kurukshetra for the period from July, 2019 to January, 2021. The petitioner also preferred CWP No. 13995 of 2020 assailing the vires of Section 69 and 132 of the CGST Act, 2017. CWP No. 1661 of 2022 racket involved in passing of ITC to various beneficiaries without supply of any underlying goods/ services. Working thereon, the said intelligence searches were conducted at the registered addresses of eight suspicious suppliers, who were supplying goods to the petitioner-company. They were all found to be non operational at their registered place of business. Investigations were further conducted with regard to creation of fake firms and mastermind behind it emerged, namely, Anant Rastogi, who has created and operated the above mentioned fake firms through which inadmissible ITC was passed on t various beneficiaries including M/s Stalwart Alloys India Limited during the period from September 2019 to February 2021. Finally Anant Rastogi was apprehended and his statement was recorded under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 and he confessed of creating the fake firms to facilitate fraudulent availment and passing of ITC to various beneficiaries including the petitioner company. The amount was deposited by the said beneficiaries in the account of existent firms and the amount was return involved companies after retention of his own commission. company who stated to be actively involved with Anant Rastogi. Acting on intelligence gathered, search was again conducted at the registered premises of the petitioner-company on 19.02.2021 and the factory premises was also searched whereupon the officers were informed that records -company were with the Excise and Taxation Officer, Ward Kurukshetra for the period from July, 2019 to January, 2021. The petitioner also preferred CWP No. 13995 of 2020 assailing the vires of Section 69 and 132 of the CGST Act, 2017. -3- racket involved in passing of ITC to various beneficiaries without supply of any the said intelligence searches were conducted at the registered addresses of eight suspicious suppliers, who were company. They were all found to be non- ace of business. Investigations were further conducted with regard to creation of fake firms and mastermind behind it emerged, namely, Anant Rastogi, who has created and operated the above mentioned fake firms through which inadmissible ITC was passed on to various beneficiaries including M/s Stalwart Alloys India Limited during the period from September 2019 to February 2021. Finally Anant Rastogi was apprehended and his statement was recorded under Section 70 of the CGST Act, ting the fake firms to facilitate fraudulent availment and passing of ITC to various beneficiaries including the petitioner- company. The amount was deposited by the said beneficiaries in the account of existent firms and the amount was returned by him in cash to the involved companies after retention of his own commission. The petitioner- company who stated to be actively involved with Anant Rastogi. Acting on intelligence gathered, search was again conducted at the company on 19.02.2021 and the factory premises was also searched whereupon the officers were informed that records the Excise and Taxation Officer, Ward-1, Kurukshetra for the period from July, 2019 to January, 2021. The petitioner also preferred CWP No. 13995 of 2020 assailing the vires of Section 69 and 132 of racket involved in passing of ITC to various beneficiaries without supply of any the said intelligence searches were conducted at the registered addresses of eight suspicious suppliers, who were - ace of business. Investigations were further conducted with regard to creation of fake firms and mastermind behind it emerged, namely, Anant Rastogi, who has created and operated the o various beneficiaries including M/s Stalwart Alloys India Limited during the period from September 2019 to February 2021. Finally Anant Rastogi was apprehended and his statement was recorded under Section 70 of the CGST Act, ting the fake firms to facilitate fraudulent - company. The amount was deposited by the said beneficiaries in the account of ed by him in cash to the - Acting on intelligence gathered, search was again conducted at the company on 19.02.2021 and the factory premises was also searched whereupon the officers were informed that records 1, Kurukshetra for the period from July, 2019 to January, 2021. The petitioner also preferred CWP No. 13995 of 2020 assailing the vires of Section 69 and 132 of VARINDER SINGH 2024.08.29 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment CWP No. 1661 of 2022 6. The Principal Director (Intellig letter dated 15.03.2022 accorded permission to the office of the DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit to conduct the centralized investigation against the petitioner company for the period after 2019. The petitioner has stated that an and seizure proceedings were again conducted at the premises of the petitioner company by the DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit. The State Tax Officer vide letter dated 15.03.2022 had transferred the proceedings pertaining to the petitioner company t Unit. 7. Feeling aggrieved of the transfer of all proceedings to DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit, by the State Tax Officer vide his letter dated 15.03.2022, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition, violation of provisions of Section 6 (2)(B) of the HGST Act officer in terms of Section 6(2)(b) of the HGST Act initiated the proceedings under Section 74(2) of the Act the power to transfer the proceedings to DGGI. It is submitted that the multiple proceedings cannot be allowed to continue and the proper officer would be the State Tax Officer alone who has the jurisdiction to examine the subject matter. It is stated that after the instance of DGGI, the record can the DGGI usurp the power of the officer under the State GST Act, he being the proper officer. CWP No. 1661 of 2022 The Principal Director (Intelligence), DGGI, Headquarters has vide letter dated 15.03.2022 accorded permission to the office of the DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit to conduct the centralized investigation against the petitioner company for the period after 2019. The petitioner has stated that an and seizure proceedings were again conducted at the premises of the petitioner company by the DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit. The State Tax Officer vide letter dated 15.03.2022 had transferred the proceedings pertaining to the petitioner company t Feeling aggrieved of the transfer of all proceedings to DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit, by the State Tax Officer vide his letter dated 15.03.2022, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition, inter-alia violation of provisions of Section 6 (2)(B) of the HGST Act n terms of Section 6(2)(b) of the HGST Act initiated the proceedings under Section 74(2) of the Act o transfer the proceedings to DGGI. It is submitted that the multiple proceedings cannot be allowed to continue and the proper officer would be the State Tax Officer alone who has the jurisdiction to examine the subject matter. It is stated that after the record having been seized by the State Tax Officer at the instance of DGGI, the record cannot be transferred to the office of DGGI nor can the DGGI usurp the power of the officer under the State GST Act, he being the -4- ence), DGGI, Headquarters has vide letter dated 15.03.2022 accorded permission to the office of the DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit to conduct the centralized investigation against the petitioner company for the period after 2019. The petitioner has stated that another search and seizure proceedings were again conducted at the premises of the petitioner The State Tax Officer vide letter dated 15.03.2022 had transferred the proceedings pertaining to the petitioner company to the DGGI, Meerut Zonal Feeling aggrieved of the transfer of all proceedings to DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit, by the State Tax Officer vide his letter dated 15.03.2022, the alia, stating that the action was in violation of provisions of Section 6 (2)(B) of the HGST Act and the proper n terms of Section 6(2)(b) of the HGST Act was the officer who had initiated the proceedings under Section 74(2) of the Act where after he does have o transfer the proceedings to DGGI. It is submitted that the multiple proceedings cannot be allowed to continue and the proper officer would be the State Tax Officer alone who has the jurisdiction to examine the subject matter. It having been seized by the State Tax Officer at the be transferred to the office of DGGI nor can the DGGI usurp the power of the officer under the State GST Act, he being the ence), DGGI, Headquarters has vide letter dated 15.03.2022 accorded permission to the office of the DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit to conduct the centralized investigation against the petitioner other search and seizure proceedings were again conducted at the premises of the petitioner The State Tax Officer vide letter dated 15.03.2022 had transferred o the DGGI, Meerut Zonal Feeling aggrieved of the transfer of all proceedings to DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit, by the State Tax Officer vide his letter dated 15.03.2022, the tion was in and the proper who had where after he does have o transfer the proceedings to DGGI. It is submitted that the multiple proceedings cannot be allowed to continue and the proper officer would be the State Tax Officer alone who has the jurisdiction to examine the subject matter. It having been seized by the State Tax Officer at the be transferred to the office of DGGI nor can the DGGI usurp the power of the officer under the State GST Act, he being the VARINDER SINGH 2024.08.29 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment CWP No. 1661 of 2022 8. Learned counsel fo dated 05.10.2018 issued by the Ministry of Finance in support of his submissions. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgment Delhi High Court in DGST, Delhi and others Unique Realtors (P) Limited and another vs Union of India and others 108 GSTR 105; Gujarat High Court in Prop of Vaibhavi Construction vs Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes (2023) 9 Centax 243; and Jharkhand (2024) 14 Centax 283 (Jhar.) 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage. He further submitted that commencement of investigation in terms of Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 can be said to be the start of a proceedings to safeguard the government revenue and, theref the State level and notice having also been issued under Section 74 (1) of the HGST Act, it would be only legal for the State authorities to conduct intelligence proceedings and there was no power available to DGGI Meerut Zonal Unit. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there was no power to transfer the proceedings between the State and the Centr CGST/ HGST, whereas there is an enabling provisio Income Tax Act and under the various other taxation Acts, namely, Sections 32C CWP No. 1661 of 2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied on the circular dated 05.10.2018 issued by the Ministry of Finance in support of his Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgment Delhi High Court in RCI Industries & Technologies DGST, Delhi and others 2021 SCC OnLine 3450; Calcutta High Court in Unique Realtors (P) Limited and another vs Union of India and others ; Gujarat High Court in Vipulchandra Pursottamdas Mahant Vaibhavi Construction vs Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes (2023) 9 Centax 243; and Jharkhand High Court in (2024) 14 Centax 283 (Jhar.). Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that issue of sdiction can be raised at any stage. He further submitted that commencement of investigation in terms of Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 can be said to be the start of a proceedings to safeguard the government revenue and, therefore, once the proceedings have been started at the State level and notice having also been issued under Section 74 (1) of the HGST Act, it would be only legal for the State authorities to conduct intelligence proceedings and there was no power available to DGGI Meerut Zonal Unit. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there was no power to transfer the proceedings between the State and the Centr CGST/ HGST, whereas there is an enabling provisio Income Tax Act and under the various other taxation Acts, namely, Sections 32C -5- r the petitioner has further relied on the circular dated 05.10.2018 issued by the Ministry of Finance in support of his Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgments of RCI Industries & Technologies Limited vs Commissioner 2021 SCC OnLine 3450; Calcutta High Court in Ideal Unique Realtors (P) Limited and another vs Union of India and others (2023) Vipulchandra Pursottamdas Mahant Vaibhavi Construction vs Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes Jharkhand High Court in Vivek Narsaria vs State of Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that issue of sdiction can be raised at any stage. He further submitted that commencement of investigation in terms of Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 can be said to be the start of a proceedings to safeguard the ore, once the proceedings have been started at the State level and notice having also been issued under Section 74 (1) of the HGST Act, it would be only legal for the State authorities to conduct intelligence proceedings and there was no power available to transfer the proceedings to Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there was no power to transfer the proceedings between the State and the Centre under the CGST/ HGST, whereas there is an enabling provision available under the Income Tax Act and under the various other taxation Acts, namely, Sections 32C r the petitioner has further relied on the circular dated 05.10.2018 issued by the Ministry of Finance in support of his of Limited vs Commissioner Ideal 3) Vipulchandra Pursottamdas Mahant Vaibhavi Construction vs Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes Vivek Narsaria vs State of Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that issue of sdiction can be raised at any stage. He further submitted that commencement of investigation in terms of Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 can be said to be the start of a proceedings to safeguard the ore, once the proceedings have been started at the State level and notice having also been issued under Section 74 (1) of the HGST Act, it would be only legal for the State authorities to conduct intelligence transfer the proceedings to Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there was under the n available under the Income Tax Act and under the various other taxation Acts, namely, Sections 32C VARINDER SINGH 2024.08.29 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment CWP No. 1661 of 2022 and 35P of the Central Excise Act, 1944; Section 131B of the Customs Act, 1962; Section 25 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956; and Section 434 of the Companies Act, 2013. Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 allows transfer of a case with the permission of the Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. 12. Per contra Mr. R. Venkataraman, learned Assistant Solicitor General has relied on the affidavit filed by the Intelligence Officer, as noticed above, and submitted that so far as the period after 2019 is concerned, the State Government has not taken any s submitted that it is only for the overlapping periods i.e. 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2018 and 01.10.2018 to 31.12.2018 that the Court had passed an order in the writ petition filed by the petitioner and, therefore now being conducted by the proper officer under the Haryana GST Act. Since the suspicious suppliers are not falling in the State of Haryana and the statement of Anant Rastogi would have relevance and the petitioner company has be found to be prima facie crores involving taxable supplies to the tune of Rs. 132.05 crores, it would be in the interest of justice that the enquiry is conducted by the DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit. After detailed deliberation, therefore, it was decided that the State GST authority would be examining the action of the previous year and for the subsequent period the action is to be taken by the Central GST authorities, if they have received any information. State GST authorities for the period July 2019 to March 2022 CWP No. 1661 of 2022 and 35P of the Central Excise Act, 1944; Section 131B of the Customs Act, 1962; Section 25 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956; and Section 434 of the nies Act, 2013. Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 allows transfer of a case with the permission of the Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. Per contra Mr. R. Venkataraman, learned Assistant Solicitor General has relied on the affidavit filed by the Intelligence Officer, as noticed above, and submitted that so far as the period after 2019 is concerned, the State Government has not taken any steps for conducting investigation. It is further submitted that it is only for the overlapping periods i.e. 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2018 and 01.10.2018 to 31.12.2018 that the Court had passed an order in the writ petition filed by the petitioner and, therefore now being conducted by the proper officer under the Haryana GST Act. Since the suspicious suppliers are not falling in the State of Haryana and the statement of Anant Rastogi would have relevance and the petitioner company has be prima facie involved in fraudulent ITC to the tune of Rs. 23.77 crores involving taxable supplies to the tune of Rs. 132.05 crores, it would be in the interest of justice that the enquiry is conducted by the DGGI, Meerut Zonal tailed deliberation, therefore, it was decided that the State GST authority would be examining the action of the previous year and for the subsequent period the action is to be taken by the Central GST authorities, if they have received any information. No investigation is being conducted by the State GST authorities for the period July 2019 to March 2022 -6- and 35P of the Central Excise Act, 1944; Section 131B of the Customs Act, 1962; Section 25 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956; and Section 434 of the nies Act, 2013. Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 allows transfer of a case with the permission of the Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Per contra Mr. R. Venkataraman, learned Assistant Solicitor General has relied on the affidavit filed by the Intelligence Officer, as noticed above, and submitted that so far as the period after 2019 is concerned, the State teps for conducting investigation. It is further submitted that it is only for the overlapping periods i.e. 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2018 and 01.10.2018 to 31.12.2018 that the Court had passed an order in the writ petition filed by the petitioner and, therefore, the said proceedings are now being conducted by the proper officer under the Haryana GST Act. Since the suspicious suppliers are not falling in the State of Haryana and the statement of Anant Rastogi would have relevance and the petitioner company has been involved in fraudulent ITC to the tune of Rs. 23.77 crores involving taxable supplies to the tune of Rs. 132.05 crores, it would be in the interest of justice that the enquiry is conducted by the DGGI, Meerut Zonal tailed deliberation, therefore, it was decided that the State GST authority would be examining the action of the previous year and for the subsequent period the action is to be taken by the Central GST authorities, if investigation is being conducted by the State GST authorities for the period July 2019 to March 2022 and the DGGI and 35P of the Central Excise Act, 1944; Section 131B of the Customs Act, 1962; Section 25 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956; and Section 434 of the nies Act, 2013. Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 allows transfer of a case with the permission of the Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Per contra Mr. R. Venkataraman, learned Assistant Solicitor General has relied on the affidavit filed by the Intelligence Officer, as noticed above, and submitted that so far as the period after 2019 is concerned, the State teps for conducting investigation. It is further submitted that it is only for the overlapping periods i.e. 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2018 and 01.10.2018 to 31.12.2018 that the Court had passed an order in , the said proceedings are now being conducted by the proper officer under the Haryana GST Act. Since the suspicious suppliers are not falling in the State of Haryana and the statement en involved in fraudulent ITC to the tune of Rs. 23.77 crores involving taxable supplies to the tune of Rs. 132.05 crores, it would be in the interest of justice that the enquiry is conducted by the DGGI, Meerut Zonal tailed deliberation, therefore, it was decided that the State GST authority would be examining the action of the previous year and for the subsequent period the action is to be taken by the Central GST authorities, if investigation is being conducted by the the DGGI VARINDER SINGH 2024.08.29 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment CWP No. 1661 of 2022 Meerut Zonal Unit or the Central GST authorities ought not be prevented from conducted further proceedings. 13. It has also been stated in (Intelligence) that searches were conducted by the officers at the registered offices of 46 supplier firms, which were also found to be non operational. 10 firms have shown supply of goods to the p the month of November 2021 and based on fraudulent/ inadmissible ITC to the tune of Rs. 121.44 crores involving taxable supplies to the tune of approximately Rs. 674.67 crores for the period from July 2019 to November 2021. Since the said investigation is required to call for investigation of various firms, the same should not be disallowed. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on judgment of Delhi High Court in Indo International Tobacco Limited vs Vivek Prasad, Additio Director General, DGGI and others contentions. 15. We have considered the submissions. 16. Section 6 (2)(b) of the C reads as under:- “ CWP No. 1661 of 2022 Meerut Zonal Unit or the Central GST authorities ought not be prevented from conducted further proceedings. It has also been stated in the reply filed by the Investigating officer (Intelligence) that searches were conducted by the officers at the registered offices of 46 supplier firms, which were also found to be non operational. 10 firms have shown supply of goods to the p the month of November 2021 and based on fraudulent/ inadmissible ITC to the tune of Rs. 121.44 crores involving taxable supplies to the tune of approximately Rs. 674.67 crores for the period from July 2019 to November 2021. Since the aid investigation is required to call for investigation of various firms, the same should not be disallowed. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on judgment of Delhi Indo International Tobacco Limited vs Vivek Prasad, Additio Director General, DGGI and others (2022) 97 GSTR 414 We have considered the submissions. Section 6 (2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 “6. Authorisation of officers of State tax as proper officer in certain circumstances prejudice to the provisions of this Act, the officers appointed under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act are authorised to be the proper officers for the purposes of this Act, subject to such conditions as the Government shall -7- Meerut Zonal Unit or the Central GST authorities ought not be prevented from the reply filed by the Investigating officer (Intelligence) that searches were conducted by the officers at the registered offices of 46 supplier firms, which were also found to be non-existent/ non- operational. 10 firms have shown supply of goods to the petitioner company in the month of November 2021 and based on fraudulent/ inadmissible ITC to the tune of Rs. 121.44 crores involving taxable supplies to the tune of approximately Rs. 674.67 crores for the period from July 2019 to November 2021. Since the aid investigation is required to call for investigation of various firms, the same Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on judgment of Delhi Indo International Tobacco Limited vs Vivek Prasad, Additional 97 GSTR 414 in support of his We have considered the submissions. entral Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Authorisation of officers of State Tax or Union Territory tax as proper officer in certain circumstances. (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of this Act, the officers appointed under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act are o be the proper officers for the purposes of this subject to such conditions as the Government shall, on Meerut Zonal Unit or the Central GST authorities ought not be prevented from the reply filed by the Investigating officer (Intelligence) that searches were conducted by the officers at the registered - etitioner company in the month of November 2021 and based on fraudulent/ inadmissible ITC to the tune of Rs. 121.44 crores involving taxable supplies to the tune of approximately Rs. 674.67 crores for the period from July 2019 to November 2021. Since the aid investigation is required to call for investigation of various firms, the same Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on judgment of Delhi nal in support of his entral Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Tax or Union Territory Without prejudice to the provisions of this Act, the officers appointed under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act are o be the proper officers for the purposes of this on VARINDER SINGH 2024.08.29 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment CWP No. 1661 of 2022 (2) 17. Section 70 of H under:- From the perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is apparent that Section 70 of the HGST Act provides for inquiry which the proper officer is required to conduct. CWP No. 1661 of 2022 the recommendations of the Council, by notification, specify (2) Subject to the conditions specified in the notification issued under sub-section (a) Where any proper officer issues an order under this Act, he shall also issue and order under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, as authorized by the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, as the case may be, under intimation to the jurisdictional officer of State tax or Union territory tax; (b) where a proper officer under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Service proceedings on a subject matter shall be initiated by the proper officer under this Act on the same subject matter. Section 70 of Haryana Goods and Services Act, 2017 “70. Power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents. under this Act shall have power to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary either to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing in any inquiry in the same manner as provided in the case of a civil court under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1098 ( (2) Every such inquiry referred to in sub (1) shall be deemed to be a “judicial proceedings” within the meaning of section 193 and section 228 of the Indian Penal Code ( From the perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is apparent that Section 70 of the HGST Act provides for inquiry which the proper officer is required to conduct. -8- the recommendations of the Council, by notification, Subject to the conditions specified in the notification section (1) – Where any proper officer issues an order under this Act, he shall also issue and order under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, as authorized by the State Goods and Services Tax on Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, as the case may be, under intimation to the jurisdictional officer of State tax or Union where a proper officer under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act has initiated any proceedings on a subject matter, no proceedings shall be initiated by the proper officer under this Act on the same subject matter.” aryana Goods and Services Act, 2017 provides as summon persons to give evidence and produce documents. (1)— The proper officer under this Act shall have power to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary either to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing in the same manner as provided in the case of a civil court under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1098 (Central Act 5 of 1908). (2) Every such inquiry referred to in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be a “judicial proceedings” eaning of section 193 and section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (Central Act 45 of 1860).” From the perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is apparent that Section 70 of the HGST Act provides for inquiry which the proper officer is required to conduct. the recommendations of the Council, by notification, Where any proper officer issues an order under this Act, he shall also issue and order under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, as authorized by the State Goods and Services Tax on Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, as the case may be, under intimation to the jurisdictional officer of State tax or Union where a proper officer under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory any , no proceedings shall be initiated by the proper officer under this provides as summon persons to give evidence The proper officer under this Act shall have power to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary either to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing in the same manner as provided in the case of a civil court under the provisions of the Code of section (1) shall be deemed to be a “judicial proceedings” eaning of section 193 and section 228 of From the perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is apparent that Section 70 of the VARINDER SINGH 2024.08.29 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment CWP No. 1661 of 2022 18. Section 72 of the under:- The power of Inspection, Search, Seizure and Arrest as provided under Chapter XIV of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 which is being exercised by the proper officer in terms of Section and 72 of the CGST Act are purely judicial in nature. In terms of Section 70 of the HGST Act Issuance of show cause notice is the point of commencement of any legal proceedings. Thus, once a proper officer has initiated any proceedings as per Section 6(2)(b) of the Act, on a subject matter, no proceedings can be initiated by another proper officer on the same subject matter. 19. We further noticed that the proper officer, who ha proceedings in the present case, the State Tax Officer, would be empowered to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents, while the other tax statutes provide for transfer of cases from one officer to another. The scheme of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Services Tax Act, 2017, no where provides for transferring the proceedings from CWP No. 1661 of 2022 Section 72 of the Haryana Goods and Services Act, 2017 “72. Officers to assist proper officer Police, Railways, Customs and those officers engaged in the collection of land revenue, including village officers, of Central Tax shall assist the proper officers in the implementation of this Act. (2) The Government may, by notification, empower and require any other class of officers to assist the proper officer in the implementation of this Act when called do so by the Commissioner.” The power of Inspection, Search, Seizure and Arrest as provided under Chapter XIV of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 which is being exercised by the proper officer in terms of Section and 72 of the CGST Act are purely judicial in nature. In terms of Section 70 GST Act, every inquiry shall be deemed to be a judicial proceedings. Issuance of show cause notice is the point of commencement of any legal Thus, once a proper officer has initiated any proceedings as per Section 6(2)(b) of the Act, on a subject matter, no proceedings can be initiated by another proper officer on the same subject matter. We further noticed that the proper officer, who ha proceedings in the present case, the State Tax Officer, would be empowered to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents, while the other tax statutes provide for transfer of cases from one officer to another. The scheme of al Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Services Tax Act, 2017, no where provides for transferring the proceedings from -9- Haryana Goods and Services Act, 2017 reads as . Officers to assist proper officer (1) All officers of Police, Railways, Customs and those officers engaged in the collection of land revenue, including village officers, officers of Central Tax shall assist the proper officers in the The Government may, by notification, empower and require any other class of officers to assist the proper officer in the implementation of this Act when called upon to The power of Inspection, Search, Seizure and Arrest as provided under Chapter XIV of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 reflects that the power which is being exercised by the proper officer in terms of Sections 69, 70, 71 and 72 of the CGST Act are purely judicial in nature. In terms of Section 70 (2) , every inquiry shall be deemed to be a judicial proceedings. Issuance of show cause notice is the point of commencement of any legal Thus, once a proper officer has initiated any proceedings as per Section 6(2)(b) of the Act, on a subject matter, no proceedings can be initiated by another proper officer on the same subject matter. We further noticed that the proper officer, who has initiated proceedings in the present case, the State Tax Officer, would be empowered to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents, while the other tax statutes provide for transfer of cases from one officer to another. The scheme of al Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 or the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, no where provides for transferring the proceedings from reads as All officers of Police, Railways, Customs and those officers engaged in the officers of Central Tax shall assist the proper officers in the The Government may, by notification, empower and require any other class of officers to assist the proper upon to The power of Inspection, Search, Seizure and Arrest as provided under Chapter reflects that the power s 69, 70, 71 (2) , every inquiry shall be deemed to be a judicial proceedings. Issuance of show cause notice is the point of commencement of any legal Thus, once a proper officer has initiated any proceedings as per Section 6(2)(b) of the Act, on a subject matter, no proceedings can be initiated s initiated proceedings in the present case, the State Tax Officer, would be empowered to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents, while the other tax statutes provide for transfer of cases from one officer to another. The scheme of or the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, no where provides for transferring the proceedings from VARINDER SINGH 2024.08.29 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment CWP No. 1661 of 2022 one proper officer to another. circumstances, neither any authority h own jurisdiction to another nor any other authority can direct for transferring an investigation/ proceeding already undergoing before the proper officer in terms of Section 6(2)(b) of the Act. 20. We find that the judgments (supra) that the DGGI does not have the power to transfer the case already under inquiry/ investigation or pending before the High Court in Indo International Tobacco Limited approach. 21. Learned of transferring the matter to DGGI is only because the DG authority and jurisdiction Pan India while the State GST authority would be unable to carry out investigation concerning wrongful / inadmissible availment of ITC by the firms outside the State. It was his submission that DGGI having larger jurisdiction to investigate to examine such issues. 22. We have considered his submission but find ourselves unable to accept the same in terms of scheme of the GST Act. As noticed above, the GST Act of 2017 empowers both the State authority as well as Central authority with equal powers. Once we have held that the proceedings are in the nature of judicial proceedings. transferred by administrative actions. CWP No. 1661 of 2022 one proper officer to another. On the other hand, it debars the same. In the circumstances, neither any authority has the power to transfer the case from its own jurisdiction to another nor any other authority can direct for transferring an investigation/ proceeding already undergoing before the proper officer in terms of Section 6(2)(b) of the Act. We find that the High Courts of Calcutta, Gujarat and Jharkhand in (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, had held that the DGGI does not have the power to transfer the case already under inquiry/ investigation or pending before the State GST authority to itself. Delhi Indo International Tobacco Limited Learned Assistant Solicitor General has submitted that the purpose of transferring the matter to DGGI is only because the DG authority and jurisdiction Pan India while the State GST authority would be nable to carry out investigation concerning wrongful / inadmissible availment of ITC by the firms outside the State. It was his submission that DGGI having jurisdiction to investigate would be, therefore, to examine such issues. We have considered his submission but find ourselves unable to accept the same in terms of scheme of the GST Act. As noticed above, the GST 7 empowers both the State authority as well as Central authority with equal powers. Once we have held that the proceedings are in the nature of judicial proceedings. The corollary, such judicial proceedings cannot be transferred by administrative actions. Merely because the DGGI has information -10- On the other hand, it debars the same. In the as the power to transfer the case from its own jurisdiction to another nor any other authority can direct for transferring an investigation/ proceeding already undergoing before the proper officer in terms Calcutta, Gujarat and Jharkhand in relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, had held that the DGGI does not have the power to transfer the case already under State GST authority to itself. Delhi Indo International Tobacco Limited (supra) has taken a different Solicitor General has submitted that the purpose of transferring the matter to DGGI is only because the DGGI would have the authority and jurisdiction Pan India while the State GST authority would be nable to carry out investigation concerning wrongful / inadmissible availment of ITC by the firms outside the State. It was his submission that DGGI having would be, therefore, more competent authority We have considered his submission but find ourselves unable to accept the same in terms of scheme of the GST Act. As noticed above, the GST 7 empowers both the State authority as well as Central authority with equal powers. Once we have held that the proceedings are in the nature of such judicial proceedings cannot be Merely because the DGGI has information On the other hand, it debars the same. In the as the power to transfer the case from its own jurisdiction to another nor any other authority can direct for transferring an investigation/ proceeding already undergoing before the proper officer in terms Calcutta, Gujarat and Jharkhand in relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, had held that the DGGI does not have the power to transfer the case already under State GST authority to itself. Delhi has taken a different Solicitor General has submitted that the purpose the authority and jurisdiction Pan India while the State GST authority would be nable to carry out investigation concerning wrongful / inadmissible availment of ITC by the firms outside the State. It was his submission that DGGI having competent authority We have considered his submission but find ourselves unable to accept the same in terms of scheme of the GST Act. As noticed above, the GST 7 empowers both the State authority as well as Central authority with equal powers. Once we have held that the proceedings are in the nature of such judicial proceedings cannot be Merely because the DGGI has information VARINDER SINGH 2024.08.29 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment CWP No. 1661 of 2022 relating to similar fraudulent availment of ITC by other firms who may be related to the firm against which Section 74 of the HGST Act by the State authority itself would not sufficient ground to presume that the State GST authority would not be able to conduct the proceedings or examine the culpability of the firm against wh proceedings under Section 74 of the HGST Act have been initiated. because there may be o there is no concept of joint proceedings. In view of the above, we do not subscribe to the contention 23. The Ministry of Finance “1. ambiguity regarding initiation of enforcement action by the Central tax officers in case of taxpayer assigned to the State tax author and vice versa. 2. 2017 had discussed and made recommendations regarding administrative division of taxpayers and concomitant issues. The recommendation in relation to cross authorities for enforcement of intelligence based action is recorded at para 28 of Agenda note no. 3 in the minutes of the meeting which reads as follows: 3. and State tax are authorized to initiate intelligence based enforcement action on the entire taxpayer's base irrespective of the CWP No. 1661 of 2022 relating to similar fraudulent availment of ITC by other firms who may be related to the firm against which the proceedings have been initiated under Section 74 of the HGST Act by the State authority itself would not sufficient ground to presume that the State GST authority would not be able to conduct the proceedings or examine the culpability of the firm against wh proceedings under Section 74 of the HGST Act have been initiated. because there may be other firm also against whom proceedings are initiated, there is no concept of joint proceedings. In view of the above, we do not subscribe to the contentions raised by learned Assistant Solicitor General. The circular dated 05.10.2018 issued by the Ministry of Finance reads as under:- It has been brought to the notice of the Board that there is ambiguity regarding initiation of enforcement action by the Central tax officers in case of taxpayer assigned to the State tax author and vice versa. In this regard, GST Council in its 9 meeting held on 16 2017 had discussed and made recommendations regarding administrative division of taxpayers and concomitant issues. The recommendation in relation to cross authorities for enforcement of intelligence based action is recorded at para 28 of Agenda note no. 3 in the minutes of the meeting which reads as follows:— “viii. Both the Central and State tax administrations shall have the power to take intelligenc in respect of the entire value chain”. It is accordingly clarified that the officers of both Central tax and State tax are authorized to initiate intelligence based enforcement action on the entire taxpayer's base irrespective of the -11- relating to similar fraudulent availment of ITC by other firms who may be proceedings have been initiated under Section 74 of the HGST Act by the State authority itself would not be a sufficient ground to presume that the State GST authority would not be able to conduct the proceedings or examine the culpability of the firm against whom proceedings under Section 74 of the HGST Act have been initiated. Merely ther firm also against whom proceedings are initiated, there is no concept of joint proceedings. In view of the above, we do not raised by learned Assistant Solicitor General. circular dated 05.10.2018 issued by the Government of India, It has been brought to the notice of the Board that there is ambiguity regarding initiation of enforcement action by the Central tax officers in case of taxpayer assigned to the State tax authority In this regard, GST Council in its 9 meeting held on 16-1- 2017 had discussed and made recommendations regarding administrative division of taxpayers and concomitant issues. The recommendation in relation to cross-empowerment of both tax authorities for enforcement of intelligence based action is recorded at para 28 of Agenda note no. 3 in the minutes of the meeting which “viii. Both the Central and State tax administrations shall have the power to take intelligence based enforcement action in respect of the entire value chain”. It is accordingly clarified that the officers of both Central tax and State tax are authorized to initiate intelligence based enforcement action on the entire taxpayer's base irrespective of the relating to similar fraudulent availment of ITC by other firms who may be proceedings have been initiated under be a sufficient ground to presume that the State GST authority would not be able to om Merely ther firm also against whom proceedings are initiated, there is no concept of joint proceedings. In view of the above, we do not Government of India, It has been brought to the notice of the Board that there is ambiguity regarding initiation of enforcement action by the Central ity - 2017 had discussed and made recommendations regarding administrative division of taxpayers and concomitant issues. The tax authorities for enforcement of intelligence based action is recorded at para 28 of Agenda note no. 3 in the minutes of the meeting which “viii. Both the Central and State tax administrations shall e based enforcement action It is accordingly clarified that the officers of both Central tax and State tax are authorized to initiate intelligence based enforcement action on the entire taxpayer's base irrespective of the VARINDER SINGH 2024.08.29 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment CWP No. 1661 of 2022 administrative assignment of the taxpayer to any authority. T authority which initiates such action is empowered to complete the entire process of investigation, issuance of SCN, adjudication, recovery, filing of appeal etc. arising out of such action. 4. initiates intelligence based enforcement action against a taxpayer administratively assigned to State tax authority, the officers of Central tax authority would not transfer the said case to its Sate tax counterpart and would themselves take the case to i conclusions. 5. enforcement action initiated by officers of State tax authorities against a taxpayer administrative assigned to the Central tax authority. 6. the IT system in this regard.” 24. Thus, the Central Government has acknowledged that once the officer of the State Tax Authority has initiated action, it would be the officer who would conduct further proceedings 25. The import of the aforesaid circular dated 05.10.2018 is to be understood to mean that when an inquiry is conducted by a proper officer of the State and investigation is required to be done by the Central Tax Officer, the Central Tax Officer would exercise the said power for the purpose of investigation. However, it would not mean that the proceedings being conducted by the State Tax Officer would also be transferred to them. They would only be in a position as investigating officer as relating to their investigation at the level of Pan India will have to be submitted to the State Tax Officer who has initiated the proceedings and as a State Tax CWP No. 1661 of 2022 administrative assignment of the taxpayer to any authority. T authority which initiates such action is empowered to complete the entire process of investigation, issuance of SCN, adjudication, recovery, filing of appeal etc. arising out of such action. In other words, if an officer of the Central tax authority initiates intelligence based enforcement action against a taxpayer administratively assigned to State tax authority, the officers of Central tax authority would not transfer the said case to its Sate tax counterpart and would themselves take the case to i conclusions. Similar position would remain in case of intelligence based enforcement action initiated by officers of State tax authorities against a taxpayer administrative assigned to the Central tax authority. It is also informed that GSTN is already making changes in the IT system in this regard.” Thus, the Central Government has acknowledged that once the officer of the State Tax Authority has initiated action, it would be the who would conduct further proceedings under the Act. The import of the aforesaid circular dated 05.10.2018 is to be understood to mean that when an inquiry is conducted by a proper officer of the State and investigation is required to be done by the Central Tax Officer, the Officer would exercise the said power for the purpose of investigation. However, it would not mean that the proceedings being conducted by the State Tax Officer would also be transferred to them. They would only be in a position as investigating officer as is done in any criminal case. Their report relating to their investigation at the level of Pan India will have to be submitted to the State Tax Officer who has initiated the proceedings and as a State Tax -12- administrative assignment of the taxpayer to any authority. The authority which initiates such action is empowered to complete the entire process of investigation, issuance of SCN, adjudication, recovery, filing of appeal etc. arising out of such action. In other words, if an officer of the Central tax authority initiates intelligence based enforcement action against a taxpayer administratively assigned to State tax authority, the officers of Central tax authority would not transfer the said case to its Sate tax counterpart and would themselves take the case to its logical Similar position would remain in case of intelligence based enforcement action initiated by officers of State tax authorities against a taxpayer administrative assigned to the Central tax GSTN is already making changes in Thus, the Central Government has acknowledged that once the officer of the State Tax Authority has initiated action, it would be the proper under the Act. The import of the aforesaid circular dated 05.10.2018 is to be understood to mean that when an inquiry is conducted by a proper officer of the State and investigation is required to be done by the Central Tax Officer, the Officer would exercise the said power for the purpose of investigation. However, it would not mean that the proceedings being conducted by the State Tax Officer would also be transferred to them. They would only be is done in any criminal case. Their report relating to their investigation at the level of Pan India will have to be submitted to the State Tax Officer who has initiated the proceedings and as a State Tax he authority which initiates such action is empowered to complete the entire process of investigation, issuance of SCN, adjudication, In other words, if an officer of the Central tax authority initiates intelligence based enforcement action against a taxpayer administratively assigned to State tax authority, the officers of Central tax authority would not transfer the said case to its Sate tax ts logical Similar position would remain in case of intelligence based enforcement action initiated by officers of State tax authorities against a taxpayer administrative assigned to the Central tax GSTN is already making changes in Thus, the Central Government has acknowledged that once the proper The import of the aforesaid circular dated 05.10.2018 is to be understood to mean that when an inquiry is conducted by a proper officer of the State and investigation is required to be done by the Central Tax Officer, the Officer would exercise the said power for the purpose of investigation. However, it would not mean that the proceedings being conducted by the State Tax Officer would also be transferred to them. They would only be is done in any criminal case. Their report relating to their investigation at the level of Pan India will have to be submitted to the State Tax Officer who has initiated the proceedings and as a State Tax VARINDER SINGH 2024.08.29 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment CWP No. 1661 of 2022 Officer has the power to issue summons and warrant applicable to Pan India. There is no reason to believe that the proceedings in any manner would be hampered or would suffer as against the company/ firm against which proceedings have been initiated under Section 74 of the Act. 26. It appears that there is another internal communication bearing F. No. CBEC-20/10/07/2019 noticed Section 6 of the CGST Act, 2017. The same reads as under: “2. Issue raised in the reference is whether intelligence based enforcement actions initiated by the Central Tax officers against those taxpayers which are assigned to the State Tax administration gets covered under section 6(1) of the CGST Act and the corresponding provisions of the SGST/UTGST Acts or whether a specific notification is required to be issued for cross empowerment on the same lines as notification No. 39/2017 authorizing the State Officers for the purpose or refunds under section 54 and 55 of the CGST Act. 3.1 The issue has been examined in the light of relevant legal provisions under the CGST Act, 2017. It is observed that Section 6 of the CGST Act provides for cross empowerment of State Tax officers and Central Tax offi “6. appointed under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act are authorised to be the proper officers for the purposes conditions as the Government shall, on the recommendations of the Council, by Notification specify. 3.2. and subsection (1) of section 6 of the respective State GST Ac respective State Tax officers and the Central Tax officers CWP No. 1661 of 2022 Officer has the power to issue summons and warrant applicable to Pan India. There is no reason to believe that the proceedings in any manner would be hampered or would suffer as against the company/ firm against which proceedings have been initiated under Section 74 of the Act. It appears that there is another internal communication bearing F. 20/10/07/2019-GST by the GST Wing dated 22.06.2020, which had noticed Section 6 of the CGST Act, 2017. The same reads as under: “2. Issue raised in the reference is whether intelligence based enforcement actions initiated by the Central Tax officers against those taxpayers which are assigned to the State Tax administration gets covered under section 6(1) of the CGST Act and the responding provisions of the SGST/UTGST Acts or whether a specific notification is required to be issued for cross empowerment on the same lines as notification No. 39/2017 authorizing the State Officers for the purpose or refunds under section 54 and 55 of the CGST Act. 3.1 The issue has been examined in the light of relevant legal provisions under the CGST Act, 2017. It is observed that Section 6 of the CGST Act provides for cross empowerment of State Tax officers and Central Tax officers and reads as: (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of this Act, the officers appointed under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act are authorised to be the proper officers for the purposes- conditions as the Government shall, on the recommendations of the Council, by Notification specify. 3.2. Thus in terms of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the CGST Act and subsection (1) of section 6 of the respective State GST Ac respective State Tax officers and the Central Tax officers -13- Officer has the power to issue summons and warrants of arrest which would be applicable to Pan India. There is no reason to believe that the proceedings in any manner would be hampered or would suffer as against the company/ firm against which proceedings have been initiated under Section 74 of the Act. It appears that there is another internal communication bearing F. GST by the GST Wing dated 22.06.2020, which had noticed Section 6 of the CGST Act, 2017. The same reads as under:- “2. Issue raised in the reference is whether intelligence based enforcement actions initiated by the Central Tax officers against those taxpayers which are assigned to the State Tax administration gets covered under section 6(1) of the CGST Act and the responding provisions of the SGST/UTGST Acts or whether a specific notification is required to be issued for cross empowerment on the same lines as notification No. 39/2017-CT dated 13.10.2017 authorizing the State Officers for the purpose or refunds under 3.1 The issue has been examined in the light of relevant legal provisions under the CGST Act, 2017. It is observed that Section 6 of the CGST Act provides for cross empowerment of State Tax cers and reads as: (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of this Act, the officers appointed under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act are authorised to be the of this Act, subject to such conditions as the Government shall, on the recommendations of the section (1) of section 6 of the CGST Act and subsection (1) of section 6 of the respective State GST Acts respective State Tax officers and the Central Tax officers s of arrest which would be applicable to Pan India. There is no reason to believe that the proceedings in any manner would be hampered or would suffer as against the company/ firm against It appears that there is another internal communication bearing F. GST by the GST Wing dated 22.06.2020, which had “2. Issue raised in the reference is whether intelligence based enforcement actions initiated by the Central Tax officers against those taxpayers which are assigned to the State Tax administration gets covered under section 6(1) of the CGST Act and the responding provisions of the SGST/UTGST Acts or whether a specific notification is required to be issued for cross empowerment CT dated 13.10.2017 authorizing the State Officers for the purpose or refunds under 3.1 The issue has been examined in the light of relevant legal provisions under the CGST Act, 2017. It is observed that Section 6 of the CGST Act provides for cross empowerment of State Tax (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of this Act, the officers appointed under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act are authorised to be the his Act, subject to such conditions as the Government shall, on the recommendations of the section (1) of section 6 of the CGST Act ts respective State Tax officers and the Central Tax officers VARINDER SINGH 2024.08.29 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment CWP No. 1661 of 2022 respectively are authorised to be the proper officers for the purposes of respective Acts and no separate notification is required for exercising the said powers in this case by the Central Tax Officers under the provisions of the State GST Act. It is noteworthy in this context that the registered person in GST are registered under both the CGST Act and the respective SGST/UTGST Act. 3.3 sub- cross empowerment is to be subjected to conditions. It means that notification would be required only if any conditions are to be imposed. For example, Notification No. 39/2017 13.10.2017 restricts powers of the State Tax officers for the purposes of refund and they have been specified as the proper officers only under section 54 and 55 of the CGST Act and not under rule 96 of the CGST Rules, 2017 (IGST Refund on exports). If no notification is issued to impose any condition, it means that the officers of State and Centre have been appointed as proper officer for all the purpose of the CGST Act and SGST Acts. 4. section legislation which instead of empowering the officer under the Act, can only be used to impose conditions on the powers given to the officers by the section. In the absence or any such conditions, the power is absolute and not conditional.” 27. Thus, it is apparent that the State and same powers under the CGST/ HGST Acts and if one of the officers has already initiated proceedings, the same cannot be transferred to another and he alone be allowed to issue process under the Act and on the same subject matter no proceedings shall be initiated by another officer. However, in the present case, CWP No. 1661 of 2022 respectively are authorised to be the proper officers for the purposes of respective Acts and no separate notification is required for exercising the said powers in this case by the Central Tax Officers under the provisions of the State GST Act. It is noteworthy in this context that the registered person in GST are registered under both the CGST Act and the respective SGST/UTGST Act. The confusion seems to be arising from the fact that, the -section provides for notification by the Government if such cross empowerment is to be subjected to conditions. It means that notification would be required only if any conditions are to be imposed. For example, Notification No. 39/2017 13.10.2017 restricts powers of the State Tax officers for the purposes of refund and they have been specified as the proper officers only under section 54 and 55 of the CGST Act and not under rule 96 of the CGST Rules, 2017 (IGST Refund on exports). If notification is issued to impose any condition, it means that the officers of State and Centre have been appointed as proper officer for all the purpose of the CGST Act and SGST Acts. Further, it may kindly be noted that a notification under section 6(1) of the CGST Act would be part of subordinate legislation which instead of empowering the officer under the Act, can only be used to impose conditions on the powers given to the officers by the section. In the absence or any such conditions, the power of Cross- empowerment under section 6(1) of the CGST Act is absolute and not conditional.” Thus, it is apparent that the State and same powers under the CGST/ HGST Acts and if one of the officers has already eedings, the same cannot be transferred to another and he alone be allowed to issue process under the Act and on the same subject matter no proceedings shall be initiated by another officer. However, in the present case, -14- respectively are authorised to be the proper officers for the purposes of respective Acts and no separate notification is required for exercising the said powers in this case by the Central Tax Officers under the provisions of the State GST Act. It is noteworthy in this context that the registered person in GST are registered under both the CGST Act and the respective SGST/UTGST Act. The confusion seems to be arising from the fact that, the said section provides for notification by the Government if such cross empowerment is to be subjected to conditions. It means that notification would be required only if any conditions are to be imposed. For example, Notification No. 39/2017-CT dated 13.10.2017 restricts powers of the State Tax officers for the purposes of refund and they have been specified as the proper officers only under section 54 and 55 of the CGST Act and not under rule 96 of the CGST Rules, 2017 (IGST Refund on exports). If notification is issued to impose any condition, it means that the officers of State and Centre have been appointed as proper officer for all the purpose of the CGST Act and SGST Acts. Further, it may kindly be noted that a notification under 6(1) of the CGST Act would be part of subordinate legislation which instead of empowering the officer under the Act, can only be used to impose conditions on the powers given to the officers by the section. In the absence or any such conditions, the empowerment under section 6(1) of the CGST Act Thus, it is apparent that the State and the Central Governments have same powers under the CGST/ HGST Acts and if one of the officers has already eedings, the same cannot be transferred to another and he alone be allowed to issue process under the Act and on the same subject matter no proceedings shall be initiated by another officer. However, in the present case, respectively are authorised to be the proper officers for the purposes of respective Acts and no separate notification is required for exercising the said powers in this case by the Central Tax Officers under the provisions of the State GST Act. It is noteworthy in this context that the registered person in GST are registered said section provides for notification by the Government if such cross empowerment is to be subjected to conditions. It means that notification would be required only if any conditions are to be CT dated 13.10.2017 restricts powers of the State Tax officers for the purposes of refund and they have been specified as the proper officers only under section 54 and 55 of the CGST Act and not under rule 96 of the CGST Rules, 2017 (IGST Refund on exports). If notification is issued to impose any condition, it means that the officers of State and Centre have been appointed as proper officer Further, it may kindly be noted that a notification under 6(1) of the CGST Act would be part of subordinate legislation which instead of empowering the officer under the Act, can only be used to impose conditions on the powers given to the officers by the section. In the absence or any such conditions, the empowerment under section 6(1) of the CGST Act Central Governments have same powers under the CGST/ HGST Acts and if one of the officers has already eedings, the same cannot be transferred to another and he alone be allowed to issue process under the Act and on the same subject matter no proceedings shall be initiated by another officer. However, in the present case, VARINDER SINGH 2024.08.29 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment CWP No. 1661 of 2022 we find that the State authorities and initiated proceedings for the period from 01.07.2017 to 22.07.2019 alone relating to financial years 2017 order has been passed by the DGGI Meerut Zonal Unit to con for the period from July 2019 to March 2022. 28. We also find that entire proceedings under the GST Act for investigation relating t firm which is registered in also been found to be availing fraudulent ITC, the Central Government authorities are not precluded from taking action against that firm. Thus, independent action against some other firm would already initiated by the State Tax Authorities against can be said to be creating are, therefore, satisf transfer the case already pending before it ITC under Section 74 (1) of the Act against the petitioner firm. Any new information which the respondents may have gathered relating to fraudulent availment or passing on, can always conducting the investigation and inquiry and proceedings under Section 74 (1) of the Act. 29. In the opinion of this Court, the Section 6(2)(b) of the Act case, thus, it would input tax credit by fraudulent means CWP No. 1661 of 2022 we find that the State authorities have issued notice to the petitioner company and initiated proceedings for the period from 01.07.2017 to 22.07.2019 alone relating to financial years 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019 order has been passed by the DGGI Meerut Zonal Unit to con for the period from July 2019 to March 2022. We also find that entire proceedings under the GST Act for investigation relating to fraudulent availment of ITC are firm which is registered in State of Haryana. If there is another firm which has been found to be availing fraudulent ITC, the Central Government authorities are not precluded from taking action against that firm. Thus, independent action against some other firm would already initiated by the State Tax Authorities against can be said to be creating any complication or multiplici are, therefore, satisfied that the State Tax Authority could not have been asked to the case already pending before it relating to the availment of wrongful ITC under Section 74 (1) of the Act against the petitioner firm. Any new information which the respondents may have gathered relating to fraudulent availment or passing on, can always be informed to the authority who is already conducting the investigation and inquiry and proceedings under Section 74 (1) of In the opinion of this Court, the of the Act would mean ‘the nature o , thus, it would mean the proceedings initiated for credit by fraudulent means. Thus, if the State has already initiated -15- have issued notice to the petitioner company and initiated proceedings for the period from 01.07.2017 to 22.07.2019 alone 2019, 2019-2020, whereafter the order has been passed by the DGGI Meerut Zonal Unit to conduct investigation We also find that entire proceedings under the GST Act for o fraudulent availment of ITC are related to a particular If there is another firm which has been found to be availing fraudulent ITC, the Central Government authorities are not precluded from taking action against that firm. Thus, independent action against some other firm would not impede the proceedings already initiated by the State Tax Authorities against the present firm. Neither it or multiplicity of proceedings. We that the State Tax Authority could not have been asked to relating to the availment of wrongful ITC under Section 74 (1) of the Act against the petitioner firm. Any new information which the respondents may have gathered relating to fraudulent be informed to the authority who is already conducting the investigation and inquiry and proceedings under Section 74 (1) of In the opinion of this Court, the word ‘subject matter’ used in mean ‘the nature of proceedings’. In the present initiated for wrongful availment of Thus, if the State has already initiated have issued notice to the petitioner company and initiated proceedings for the period from 01.07.2017 to 22.07.2019 alone 2020, whereafter the duct investigation We also find that entire proceedings under the GST Act for related to a particular If there is another firm which has been found to be availing fraudulent ITC, the Central Government authorities are not precluded from taking action against that firm. Thus, not impede the proceedings firm. Neither it ty of proceedings. We that the State Tax Authority could not have been asked to relating to the availment of wrongful ITC under Section 74 (1) of the Act against the petitioner firm. Any new information which the respondents may have gathered relating to fraudulent be informed to the authority who is already conducting the investigation and inquiry and proceedings under Section 74 (1) of used in n the present wrongful availment of Thus, if the State has already initiated VARINDER SINGH 2024.08.29 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment CWP No. 1661 of 2022 proceedings by issuing notice under Section 74 of the Act for the pe 22.07.2019, for the same subject matter, the DGGI cannot be allowed to initiate proceedings for period from 28.07.2019 to 20.01.2022. Such action, if allowed, would be contrary to the provisions contained in Section 6 (2)(b) of the Act. 30. It is to be noticed that earlier this Court had already directed the respondents to conduct the proceedings at one place alone. Since the proceedings have already been initiated by the State author Officer at Shahbad entire record is available with them to uphold the action of the DGGI or the action of the State Tax Officer in transferring the proceedings pertaining to the petitioner firm which were pending before it by his letter dated 15.03.2022. We, accordingly, direct the State Tax Officer proceedings in terms of the provision 31. In a federal structure, the Central Government authorities and the State authorities would exclusion with one another. The investigation which may be conducted would, therefore, have to be based on one another and once the State or the Central authority has initiated proceedings, the other authority would act in support of the same a proceedings may reach to a final conclusion and achieve its results. 32. In view of the the respondents in transferring the proceedings to DGGI, Meerut vide their CWP No. 1661 of 2022 proceedings by issuing notice under Section 74 of the Act for the pe 22.07.2019, for the same subject matter, the DGGI cannot be allowed to initiate proceedings for the availment of input tax credit by fraudulent means for the period from 28.07.2019 to 20.01.2022. Such action, if allowed, would be provisions contained in Section 6 (2)(b) of the Act. It is to be noticed that earlier this Court had already directed the respondents to conduct the proceedings at one place alone. Since the proceedings have already been initiated by the State authorities i.e. Officer at Shahbad. The summons and warrants have already been issued and the entire record is available with them. As has come on record, there is no occasion ld the action of the DGGI or the action of the State Tax Officer in transferring the proceedings pertaining to the petitioner firm which were pending before it by his letter dated 15.03.2022. We, accordingly, direct the State Tax Officer under the GST Act to proceed and conclude the proceedings in terms of the provisions of the Act. In a federal structure, the Central Government authorities and the State authorities would be required to act in tandem and not to operate in with one another. The investigation which may be conducted would, therefore, have to be based on one another and once the State or the Central authority has initiated proceedings, the other authority would act in support of the same and provide all necessary inputs so that the proceedings may reach to a final conclusion and achieve its results. In view of the aforesaid findings and conclusion drawn, action of the respondents in transferring the proceedings to DGGI, Meerut vide their -16- proceedings by issuing notice under Section 74 of the Act for the period upto 22.07.2019, for the same subject matter, the DGGI cannot be allowed to initiate availment of input tax credit by fraudulent means for the period from 28.07.2019 to 20.01.2022. Such action, if allowed, would be provisions contained in Section 6 (2)(b) of the Act. It is to be noticed that earlier this Court had already directed the respondents to conduct the proceedings at one place alone. Since the proceedings ities i.e. the Excise and Taxation . The summons and warrants have already been issued and the s has come on record, there is no occasion ld the action of the DGGI or the action of the State Tax Officer in transferring the proceedings pertaining to the petitioner firm which were pending before it by his letter dated 15.03.2022. We, accordingly, quash the same and under the GST Act to proceed and conclude the of the Act. In a federal structure, the Central Government authorities and the to act in tandem and not to operate in with one another. The investigation which may be conducted would, therefore, have to be based on one another and once the State or the Central authority has initiated proceedings, the other authority, State or the Central nd provide all necessary inputs so that the proceedings may reach to a final conclusion and achieve its results. aforesaid findings and conclusion drawn, action of the respondents in transferring the proceedings to DGGI, Meerut vide their riod upto 22.07.2019, for the same subject matter, the DGGI cannot be allowed to initiate availment of input tax credit by fraudulent means for the period from 28.07.2019 to 20.01.2022. Such action, if allowed, would be It is to be noticed that earlier this Court had already directed the respondents to conduct the proceedings at one place alone. Since the proceedings Excise and Taxation . The summons and warrants have already been issued and the s has come on record, there is no occasion ld the action of the DGGI or the action of the State Tax Officer in transferring the proceedings pertaining to the petitioner firm which were pending quash the same and under the GST Act to proceed and conclude the In a federal structure, the Central Government authorities and the to act in tandem and not to operate in with one another. The investigation which may be conducted would, therefore, have to be based on one another and once the State or the Central State or the Central nd provide all necessary inputs so that the aforesaid findings and conclusion drawn, action of the respondents in transferring the proceedings to DGGI, Meerut vide their VARINDER SINGH 2024.08.29 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment CWP No. 1661 of 2022 orders are not sustainable in law. The proper officer, namely, Excise & Taxation Officer, Shahbad had no jurisdiction to transfer Government vide letter dated 08.07.2020 and 15.03.2022 and the same are quashed and set aside. 33. The writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed with further direction that the Excise & Taxation Officer with the proceedings initiated under Section 74(1) of the HGST Act against the petitioner-company and shall also examine all the aspects which may have been revealed relating to evasion of tax or availment of ITC after 22.07.2019. 34. All pending applications shall stand disposed of terms. 35. No costs. 28.08.2024 vs Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable CWP No. 1661 of 2022 orders are not sustainable in law. The proper officer, namely, Excise & Taxation Officer, Shahbad had no jurisdiction to transfer Government vide letter dated 08.07.2020 and 15.03.2022 and the same are hed and set aside. The writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed with further direction that the Excise & Taxation Officer-cum-proper officer, with the proceedings initiated under Section 74(1) of the HGST Act against the company and shall also examine all the aspects which may have been revealed relating to evasion of tax or availment of ITC after 22.07.2019. All pending applications shall stand disposed of No costs. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) (SANJAY VASHISTH) Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -17- orders are not sustainable in law. The proper officer, namely, Excise & Taxation Officer, Shahbad had no jurisdiction to transfer the proceedings to the Central Government vide letter dated 08.07.2020 and 15.03.2022 and the same are The writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed with further direction proper officer, Shahbad, shall continue with the proceedings initiated under Section 74(1) of the HGST Act against the company and shall also examine all the aspects which may have been revealed relating to evasion of tax or availment of ITC after 22.07.2019. All pending applications shall stand disposed of in the aforesaid (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No orders are not sustainable in law. The proper officer, namely, Excise & Taxation the proceedings to the Central Government vide letter dated 08.07.2020 and 15.03.2022 and the same are The writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed with further direction Shahbad, shall continue with the proceedings initiated under Section 74(1) of the HGST Act against the company and shall also examine all the aspects which may have been in the aforesaid VARINDER SINGH 2024.08.29 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment "