TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>DSC Rohtak lacks territorial jurisdiction over CGST case involving Delhi-registered firms, orders transfer to New Delhi</h1> <h3>Sh. Praveen Jain Versus Directorate of GST Intelligence, Rohtak Regional Unit</h3> DSC Rohtak held it lacked territorial jurisdiction over CGST Act case where DGGI investigated firms registered in Delhi, not Haryana. Since alleged firms ... Territorial jurisdiction of Hon'ble Court at Rohtak - Investigation conducted by the DGGI, Rohtak - All alleged Firms/ Companies are 'Registered' under the CGST Act, 2017 at 'Delhi' and not in Haryana / Rohtak - the alleged Firms/ Companies have NOT 'Issued' NOR 'Received' any alleged invoices within the Territorial Jurisdiction of the District Courts, Rohtak - HELD THAT:- Remand of the Applicant was not obtained by the Department from this Hon'ble Court on the basis of any allegation based on any Firm/ Company Registered within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court - admittedly, the alleged Firms/ Companies have NOT 'Issued' NOR 'Received' any alleged invoices within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. It is therefore clear that this Hon'ble Court lacks the Territorial Jurisdiction in the present case and therefore the Remand of the Applicant is required to be Transited to the Court of Appropriate Jurisdiction i.e., the Court of Ld. C.M.M, New Delhi, which exercises the Territorial Jurisdiction over the Firms/ Companies', which are Registered in Delhi - Rather, given the abovesaid facts, even if Charge Sheet/ Complaint is filed before this Hon'ble Court at Rohtak, Haryana, this Hon'ble Court would not be Jurisdictionally Competent to take COGNIZANCE of the Charge Sheet/Complaint and the same would have to be returned to the Department for filing before a Court of Competent Territorial Jurisdiction i.e., the Court of Ld. C.M.M, New Delhi. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe primary issue considered in this judgment is whether the District & Sessions Court Rohtak has the territorial jurisdiction to handle the remand of the applicant, given that the firms and companies involved are registered in Delhi under the CGST Act, 2017. The legal question revolves around the appropriate territorial jurisdiction for the filing of charges and the remand of the applicant.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Territorial Jurisdiction under Section 179 Cr.P.C.Relevant legal framework and precedents: The application is filed under Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which deals with the jurisdiction of courts in cases where an act is an offense by reason of anything that has been done and of a consequence that has ensued. The applicant argues that since all the firms and companies are registered in Delhi, the appropriate jurisdiction lies with the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (C.M.M.), New Delhi.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court examines the registration details of the firms and companies involved, which are annexed as proof. It is noted that the registration under the CGST Act, 2017, is indeed at Delhi, not within the jurisdiction of the Rohtak court. The court considers the implications of this registration on its jurisdiction to handle the remand.Key evidence and findings: The court reviews the annexures provided, which include registration documents and previous orders from other courts in similar circumstances. These documents support the claim that the jurisdiction should be with the C.M.M., New Delhi.Application of law to facts: The court applies Section 179 Cr.P.C. to the facts, noting that the alleged offenses (issuance and receipt of invoices) did not occur within its territorial jurisdiction. The court also considers precedents from similar cases where jurisdiction was transferred to the appropriate court in Delhi.Treatment of competing arguments: The applicant argues that the remand should be transferred to New Delhi, as the Rohtak court lacks jurisdiction. The Department's ability to investigate across India is acknowledged, but it is emphasized that filing charges must occur in the competent territorial jurisdiction.Conclusions: The court concludes that it lacks the territorial jurisdiction to handle the remand and that the appropriate jurisdiction lies with the C.M.M., New Delhi. The remand should be transited accordingly.2. Precedential Support for Transfer of JurisdictionRelevant legal framework and precedents: The application references previous orders from other courts, such as the A.C.J.M., Gurugram, and the S.C.J.M., Meerut, where similar jurisdictional issues were resolved by transferring the case to the appropriate court in New Delhi.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court considers these precedents as persuasive support for its decision. The orders demonstrate a consistent approach in similar cases, emphasizing the importance of proper jurisdiction in judicial proceedings.Key evidence and findings: The annexures include copies of these previous orders, which the court reviews to understand the rationale behind the jurisdictional transfers.Application of law to facts: The court applies the reasoning from these precedents to the current case, finding that the facts align closely with those in the referenced orders. This supports the decision to transfer jurisdiction to New Delhi.Treatment of competing arguments: The court acknowledges the Department's role in investigating offenses under the CGST Act but emphasizes that filing charges must adhere to territorial jurisdiction rules.Conclusions: The court concludes that the precedents support the transfer of jurisdiction to New Delhi, reinforcing its decision to transit the remand.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: The court states, 'This Hon'ble Court lacks the Territorial Jurisdiction in the present case and therefore the Remand of the Applicant is required to be Transited to the Court of Appropriate Jurisdiction i.e., the Court of Ld. C.M.M, New Delhi.'Core principles established: The judgment reaffirms the principle that jurisdiction is determined by the location of the registered offices of the entities involved and the place of the alleged offense. It underscores the necessity of adhering to territorial jurisdiction rules for filing charges.Final determinations on each issue: The court determines that it lacks jurisdiction and orders the transit of the remand to the C.M.M., New Delhi, which holds the appropriate territorial jurisdiction. The court also issues directions for the release warrant and the production of the applicant before the C.M.M., New Delhi.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
