TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 702
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4. The factual matrix giving rise to the present writ petition is as follows: The Petitioner company, duly registered under the CGST/ DGST Act, functions from its unit at Pitampura, North-West Delhi and has its godown/warehouse at Shahbad, Daulatpur, Delhi. It also has units in other states for which separate registration under the CGST Act exists at Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh. On 30th September, 2020 at 3:30 PM, the Respondent No. 2 (Assistant Commissioner/VATO, Delhi) entered the Petitioner's place of business and godown, for the purpose of conducting a search. Petitioner was handed over a notice by Respondent No. 2 under Rule 56(18) of DGST Rules, 2017, inter-alia asking to produce books of accounts for the period 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-2021. Besides, Respondent No. 2 also provided: (i) a copy of authorisation in Form GST INS-01 dated 30th September, 2020, (ii) Deployment Order No. 119 dated 30th September, 2020 under Section 60 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004, as well as (ii) Grant of Authority dated 30.09.2020 in Form DVAT-50 under Rule 65 of DVAT Rules, 2004. It is contended that at the end of search, forced statement of the Managing Director was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orisation of officers of central tax as proper officer in certain circumstances - (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of this Act, the officers appointed under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Central Act 12 of 2017) are authorised to be the proper officers for the purposes of this Act, subject to such conditions as the Government shall, on the recommendations of the Council, by notification, specify. (2) Subject to the conditions specified in the notification issued under sub-section (1),- (a) where any proper officer issues an order under this Act, he shall also issue an order under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Central Act 12 of 2017) as authorised by the said Act under intimation to the jurisdictional officer of central tax; (b) where a proper officer under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Central Act 12 of 2017) 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. (3) Any proceedings for rectification, appeal and revision, wherever applicable, of any order passed by an officer appointed under this Act, shall not lie before an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that although the earlier notice issued under Rule 56(18) of the DGST Rules, 2017 requisitioned the documents for the period from 2017-18 to 2020-2021, but now the fresh notice is confined to 2020-21. As regards the contention of mentioning of the provisions of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004, he submits that the said provisions are saved in terms of Section 174(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 and therefore, the rules framed thereunder and the DVAT Act can be resorted to for the purpose of adjudication, insofar as the dues pertain to the period prior to the promulgation of the CGST Laws. Lastly Mr. Ramesh Singh further states that the ground of coercion in respect of the statement recorded during search, is clearly an afterthought. He points out that Petitioner has never taken any steps to retract the said statement, and that the Petitioner, availing the benefit of Section 74(5), has agreed to pay the amount which is in fact a reduced amount and is instead paying only 15% of the entire penalty amount. 11. Having perused the record and duly considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any force in the grounds urged by the Petitioner. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the said period. To our mind, the request in the notice dated 30th September, 2020 cannot ipso facto lead to the conclusion that there is a parallel investigation for the same period by both the Central and State Authorities. 13. To counter the claim of the Petitioner, Mr. Singh has, during the course of the hearing, screen-shared the recent notice issued by the State Authorities dated 16th November, 2020, which was not brought to our notice by the Petitioner. This notice is evidently making a requisition for documents pertaining to 2020-21. The said letter reads as under:- "OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, (KCS WARD-201) GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI: DEPTT. OF TRADE & TAXES: 13TH FLOOR VYAPAR BHAWAN I.P. ESTATE : NEW DELHI-110002. F.NO. AC/KCS/WARD-201/2020-21/67 Dated: 16-11-2020 To, M/s. RCI Industries & Technologies Ltd. GSTN: 07AAACI45727Q2ZT 421, 4th Floor Pearl Omaxe, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi-110034. Subject:- Notice for personal hearing and submitting of record reg. Sir, Kindly refer to this office communication no AC/KCS/WARD201/2020-21/62 dated 05/11/2020 send to the official email ID [...]@rciind.com of the taxpayer M/s RCI Industries &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ock of Rs. 4,45,67,769/- . 5. The Enforcement team has intimated in its report that there is a difference between tax liability declared in GSTR 3b and ITC available in GSTR 2A and the same was not discharged by payment of tax. An explanation was called for in this regard but no reply/explanation has been received till the date of submission of report. 6. The Enforcement Team has intimated in its report that the dealer has undertaken in writing to submit the following information/documents with its clarification in the office but the same has not been submitted by the dealer till finalization of this report. i. Write up on the TRAN-1 credit availed. ii. Documents regarding search and seizure by DGGI Gurugram and Anti Evasion CGST Delhi. iii. Difference between ITC credit in GSTR 3B and tax liability in GSTR 313. iv. Details of inward and outward ITC. 7. It has also been intimated by the Enforcement Team in its report that Sh. Rajiv Gupta, Director in his statement dated 30/09/2020 has undertaken to deposit admitted tax/penalty amounting to Rs. 1734314/- arisen on account of variation of cash/stock and payment made beyond 180 days to Sundry creditors, through DRC-03, w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es prescribed under the Act or the Rules, it would be profitable to throw some light on the issue. In this context, the letter issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs dated 5th October, 2018 which also finds mentions in the order of the Gujarat High Court in R/Special Civil Application No. 23279 of 2019 dated 27th December, 2019 titled Sureshbhai Gadhecha v. State of Gujarat, relied upon by the Petitioner, reads as under: "LETTER D.O.F. NO. CBEC/20/43/01/2017-GST(FT.) CLARIFICATIONS ON AMBIGUITY REGARDING INITIATION OF ENFORCEMENT ACTION BY CENTRAL TAX OFFICERS IN CASE OF TAXPAYERS ASSIGNED TO STATE TAX AUTHORITY AND VICE VERSA LETTER D.O.F. NO. CBEC/20/43/01/2017-GST(PT), DATED 5-10-2018 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 and vice versa. 2. In this regard, GST Council in its 9th 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 enf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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-CT dated 13.10.2017 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:- "6. (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- of this Act, Subject to such 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 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ake action to impugn the same in accordance with law. 17. As regards the absence of the two independent witnesses, we may first note that there is no panchnama on record. In essence, the main thrust of Petitioner's argument is that the statement of Mr. Rajeev Gupta does not record the presence of the two independent witnesses or signatures, making the search action illegal. We have already dealt with the contention of the Petitioner regarding the alleged involuntary/forced statement and in view of our observations made hereinabove, this issue, is rendered insignificant. Further, no specific provision is shown to us that deals with recording of statement in search action. The only relevant section is Section 70, which does not entail signatures of witnesses. Be that as it may, determination of tax liability, has to be in accordance within the confines of statutory provisions of the GST laws. We reiterate that the evidentiary value of the aforenoted statement, and the effect of payment of tax and interest made pursuant thereto, are issues which would have to be gone into at the stage of adjudication. 18. We also do not find merit in the contention of the Petitioner that absence of ....