Court affirms Mumbai jurisdiction in Central Excise & GST Act case, clarifies petitioner obligations.

The court dismissed the petition challenging an enquiry initiated by respondent No. 2 under the Central Excise Act and GST Act. It held that the petitioner, registered in Mumbai, fell under the jurisdiction of Mumbai authorities despite primary business operations in Jaipur. The court found no basis to interfere with the investigation and clarified that providing photocopies of documents already submitted to Jaipur authorities would suffice for the Mumbai authorities. This decision clarifies jurisdictional issues and petitioner obligations under the Central Excise Act and GST Act.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to enquiry initiated by respondent No. 2 under Central Excise Act and GST Act, Jurisdiction of Mumbai authorities over petitioner's business, Parallel proceedings by different authorities

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition challenging an enquiry initiated by respondent No. 2, the Superintendent of CGST & Central Excise in Mumbai, through summons dated 28.9.2018 under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Section 70 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that he was already under investigation by CGST Authorities in Jaipur, who had issued a summons dated 7.9.2017. The petitioner contended that conducting two parallel proceedings on the same subject was without jurisdiction.

Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 argued that the petitioner had responded to the summons dated 28.9.2018 and had made a statement before the authorities on 18.1.2018. The respondents contended that the petition should not be entertained due to the petitioner's actions. The court acknowledged that the petitioner had registered under the CGST Act 2017 and the Finance Act, 1994 (service tax) in Mumbai, making him subject to the jurisdiction of Mumbai authorities for business conducted within their jurisdiction. The petitioner claimed that his primary business operations were in Jaipur, but the court held that registration in Mumbai and providing services there subjected the petitioner to Mumbai authorities' jurisdiction, as per Section 25 of the CGST Act 2017, which mandates separate registration for each state. Therefore, the court found no grounds to interfere with the investigation by respondent No. 2 in Mumbai and dismissed the petition.

The court concluded by dismissing the petition but clarified that if the originals of documents sought by respondent No. 2 in Mumbai had already been provided to the authorities in Jaipur, then the production of photocopies would be accepted as sufficient compliance by the Mumbai authorities. This judgment clarifies the jurisdictional issues concerning parallel proceedings by different authorities and the obligations of the petitioner under the Central Excise Act and the GST Act.

---