DGGI investigation transferred from Siliguri to Kolkata unit to avoid inconsistency in parallel enquiries

The HC addressed parallel enquiries by DGGI units in Siliguri and Kolkata regarding search and seizure operations. The court held that while writ petitions against summons are not maintainable, the centralized DGGI (East) Kolkata unit, having jurisdiction over entire Eastern India, should conduct the investigation to avoid inconsistency. All files from Siliguri unit were ordered transferred to Kolkata unit. The court quashed summons issued to a doctor who provided medical certificate for adjournment, ruling authorities were unjustified in summoning the medical professional who acted within statutory duties. The writ appeals were partly allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
Challenge to order passed by learned Single Judge regarding parallel enquiry by DGGI in Siliguri and Kolkata, legality of search and seizure operations, quashing of summons, jurisdiction of proper officer under Goods and Services Tax Act, maintainability of writ petition against summons, interference with medical professional's duties, transfer of files from Siliguri to Kolkata, cooperation with authorities, video conferencing for responding to summons, quashing of summons to doctor.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to Order on Parallel Enquiry:
The appeals challenged the order of the learned Single Judge regarding the parallel enquiry conducted by the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) in Siliguri and Kolkata. The respondents filed a writ petition seeking directions to halt the parallel enquiry, quash issued summons, and declare the search and seizure operation illegal. The Single Judge admitted the writ petition, observing the arguable case made by the respondents and stayed proceedings in Kolkata due to the Covid situation.

2. Jurisdiction of Proper Officer:
The Court analyzed the provisions of the Goods and Services Tax Act, specifically Section 70, empowering the proper officer to summon individuals for inquiries. The Act defines "proper officer" as the commissioner or an officer assigned by the commissioner. Section 6 deals with authorizing officers in specific circumstances, stating that no parallel proceedings can be initiated on the same subject matter by different proper officers.

3. Maintainability of Writ Petition Against Summons:
The appellants argued that challenging a summons through a writ petition is not maintainable. They contended that the DGGI (East), Kolkata had jurisdiction over the entire Eastern region, justifying the issuance of summons to the respondents. However, the respondents objected to parallel proceedings in Siliguri and Kolkata, citing unnecessary hardship and harassment.

4. Transfer of Files and Cooperation:
To streamline the investigation and avoid inconsistencies, the Court directed the transfer of all files from Siliguri to Kolkata for centralized handling. The respondents were instructed to cooperate with the authorities and attend hearings as summoned. The Court did not opine on the request for responding to summons via video conferencing, leaving it to the authorities' discretion.

5. Interference with Medical Professional:
The Court criticized the issuance of a summons to a doctor who provided a medical certificate justifying an adjournment. The summons to the doctor was deemed unjustified and quashed under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

6. Conclusion:
The writ appeals were partly allowed, setting aside the interim order and issuing directions for the transfer of files and cooperation with the authorities. The Court emphasized compliance with summons and disposed of both appeals and connected applications without costs.

This detailed analysis covers the various legal issues addressed in the judgment, including jurisdiction, maintainability of challenges, cooperation with authorities, and interference with professional duties.

---