2024 (12) TMI 1511 - HC - GST

GST investigation by improper officer makes Section 74 show cause notice void, refund ordered

Karnataka HC set aside a show cause notice under Section 74 of CGST/KGST Act where investigation, inspection, search and seizure were substantially ... Challenge to SCN issued by Proper Officer - When the investigation, inspection, search and seizure is substantially completed by an improper Officer, is the show cause notice issued by a proper Officer under Section 74 of the CGST Act and KGST Act liable to be set aside? HELD THAT:- In the instant case, it is not in dispute that respondent no. 1 is the proper officer for inspection, search and seizure and also issuance of show cause notice and not respondent no. 2. Reading of Section 74 of the CGST Act shows that it is only a proper Officer who can investigate into evasion of GST and inspection, search and seizure and arrest can be done only by the proper Officer failing which the same will have to be held invalid and based upon the inspection, search and seizure if the proper Officer comes to the conclusion that there is mens rea involved as contemplated under Section 74 of the CGST Act, he can issue a notice under Section 74 and not otherwise - In the instant case, admittedly, substantial part of the investigation including search and seizure of the materials has been done by respondent no. 2 who is not the proper Officer and under the circumstances, the said investigation, inspection, search and seizure in respect of the petitioner herein has to be considered ab initio void. When the same is considered as ab initio void, notice issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act based upon search, seizure and the statements recorded from the petitioner which has been relied upon, has to be considered illegal and that there is no satisfaction on part of the proper Officer for issuance of the notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act. If respondent no. 2 after investigation has transferred the case to respondent no.3, for issuance of notice under Section 74, respondent no.3 was required to redo the investigation and come to an independent conclusion as contemplated under Section 74 of the CGST Act and only thereafter a fresh notice requires to be issued. Respondent no. 1 cannot issue a notice under Section 74 on the 'borrowed satisfaction'. Conclusion - It is only a proper Officer who can investigate into evasion of GST and inspection, search and seizure and arrest can be done only by the proper Officer failing which the same will have to be held invalid. The impugned show cause notice dated 11.04.2023 issued by respondent no. 1 (vide Annexure-G to the writ petition) is hereby set aside insofar as it relates to the petitioner - respondent no. 1 is directed to refund a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- to the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order - petition disposed off. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether a show cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act/KGST Act, issued by a 'proper officer', is vitiated where the substantial part of investigation, inspection, search and seizure was conducted by an officer who was not the 'proper officer' as defined under the statute. 2. Whether materials, statements and seizures made by an improper officer during investigation may be relied upon by a proper officer to form satisfaction and issue proceedings under Section 74 (i.e., whether a proper officer can act on 'borrowed satisfaction'). 3. What is the legal consequence (including refund of provisional payment and return of seized materials) if investigation, inspection, search and seizure are held void ab initio for want of exercise of powers by a proper officer. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 1: Validity of show cause notice where substantive investigation was conducted by an improper officer Legal framework: Definition of 'proper officer' (Section 2(91) CGST Act); appointment of officers by notification (Section 3); delegation and exercise of powers by officers (Section 5); powers of inspection, search and seizure (Section 67, Chapter XIV); Section 74 (Chapter XV) empowering the proper officer to issue notice where tax short-paid, input credit wrongly availed or where fraud/wilful-misstatement/suppression of facts is found. Precedent treatment: The respondents relied on Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (1974) to contend that materials seized in an illegal search may be used by authorities; the petitioner relied on later decisions (including a Division Bench decision) distinguishing Pooran Mal and treating illegal searches as potentially vitiating subsequent proceedings where initiation of proceedings is a jurisdictional prerequisite. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court analysed statutory text and scheme of Chapters XIV and XV. Section 67 expressly contemplates that inspection, search and seizure are powers of the 'proper officer' (not below Joint Commissioner unless authorised), and Section 74 entrusts the determination under that section to the 'proper officer'. The Court found as a fact that the bulk of inspection, search and seizure and recording of statements were undertaken by an officer who was not the proper officer; the matter was later transferred to a proper officer who only completed formalities. Given the statutory insistence that the proper officer must have 'reasons to believe' and actually exercise powers under Chapter XIV, the Court held that where the substantive exercise of those powers was by an improper officer, the investigation must be considered void ab initio in respect of that person. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where substantial investigation, including search, seizure and statements, is conducted by an officer who is not the 'proper officer' empowered under the CGST/KGST Acts, such investigation is void ab initio for the purposes of initiating proceedings under Section 74; a notice under Section 74 issued by a proper officer based solely on such investigation is liable to be set aside. Obiter - Observations distinguishing Pooran Mal on factual/legal grounds and noting applicability of later constitutional jurisprudence were explanatory of reasoning. Conclusion: The impugned notice under Section 74 is invalid insofar as it rests on investigation, search and seizure conducted by an improper officer; the investigation in that form must be treated as void ab initio and cannot furnish the requisite satisfaction for Section 74 proceedings. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 2: Reliance on materials obtained by an improper officer; doctrine of 'borrowed satisfaction' Legal framework: Section 67(1)-(2) confers specific authorisations to the proper officer to authorise other officers or himself to inspect, search and seize; Section 5 permits delegation subject to conditions and limitations; Section 74 requires that the proper officer be of the opinion (i.e., have satisfaction) that tax has been evaded by fraud/wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts to issue notice. Precedent treatment: The respondents asserted Pooran Mal supports use of material seized illegally; the petitioner relied on decisions distinguishing Pooran Mal where validity of initiation is a prerequisite to certain proceedings (e.g., block assessments) and on later jurisprudence that construes constitutional protections differently from the older precedents relied on in Pooran Mal. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasised that Section 74 contemplates an independent satisfaction by the proper officer after investigation; mere formal issuance of notice by a proper officer on the basis of records built by an improper officer amounts to acting on 'borrowed satisfaction', which is inconsistent with statutory scheme. The Court held that if the material foundation (search, seizure, statements) is void, the proper officer cannot validly derive satisfaction from those materials without redoing the investigation independently and reaching his own conclusion as required by Section 74. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A proper officer cannot issue a Section 74 notice based on 'borrowed satisfaction' drawn from an investigation substantially conducted by an improper officer; the proper officer must independently re-conduct/validate the investigation and form his own satisfaction before issuing notice under Section 74. Obiter - Discussion on reconciling Pooran Mal with later authorities and with constitutional developments was illustrative and not necessary to the core holding. Conclusion: Materials and conclusions derived from an investigation substantially undertaken by an improper officer cannot be the basis of a valid Section 74 notice unless the proper officer independently re-investigates and forms his own satisfaction in accordance with statutory requirements. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 3: Remedies and consequences where investigation and consequent notice are held void ab initio Legal framework: Provisions for return of seized documents (Section 67(3), retention periods and provisional release under Section 67(6)); Section 74 and its mandate for notice and determination; inherent power to direct refund of provisional payments where paid under protest; statutory reservation that proper officer may proceed in accordance with law (liberty to re-initiate after lawful investigation). Precedent treatment: Reliance by parties on authorities concerning admissibility/use of illegally obtained materials and the consequences of invalid searches; Court weighed those precedents against statutory text and purpose. Interpretation and reasoning: Having held the investigation void ab initio and the Section 74 notice invalid, the Court concluded that consequential reliefs follow: the provisional deposit paid under protest during the invalid investigation is to be refunded; seized materials and documents seized by the improper officer must be released/returned; however, the statutory scheme permits the proper officers to initiate fresh action in accordance with law, subject to due process and proper exercise of powers. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where an investigation is void ab initio for want of exercise of powers by a proper officer, consequential orders based on that investigation (including a Section 74 notice) must be set aside and provisional deposits paid under protest must be refunded and seized materials returned. Obiter - Directions preserving liberty to re-initiate lawful proceedings were remedial guidance consistent with statutory scheme. Conclusion: The appropriate relief is setting aside the impugned Section 74 notice insofar as based on the void investigation, directing refund of the provisional deposit and release of seized materials, while reserving liberty to competent proper officers to proceed afresh in accordance with law. CROSS-REFERENCES 1. Issue 1 and Issue 2 are interlinked: the invalidity of investigation by an improper officer (Issue 1) underpins the prohibition on acting upon 'borrowed satisfaction' by a proper officer (Issue 2). 2. Issue 3 follows consequentially from Issues 1 and 2: once the foundational investigation is void ab initio and a notice under Section 74 is set aside, refund and return of seized materials flow as statutory and equitable consequences, subject to liberty to re-investigate lawfully.