TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 1000
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions may be issued for transfer of such inquiry/investigation from Ghaziabad Regional Unit to Respondent No. 2 DGGI HQ Delhi or Delhi Zonal Unit; c) Hold and declare that the territorial jurisdiction of the proceedings being carried out by the Respondent No. 3 in F. No. DGGI/INT/INTL/1402/2021 vests with the courts at Delhi; d) Quash and set aside the Summons dated 07/02/2022 and 02/02/2022 issued against the Petitioner as the same have been actuated with malice; e) Issue appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) to the Respondents in furtherance of the observations; order(s) and direction(s) issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter alia, vide Order dated 02.12.2020 passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 3543 of 2020 titled as 'Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh & Ors.' to the effect that all proceedings carried out by Respondent no. 1 & 2 including those in relation to the recording of statements etc. in terms of the Notice (s)/ Summon (s) issued under Section 50 PMLA in ECIR MBZO-1/66/2021 to be audio/video-graphed in the presence of Petitioner's lawyer at a visible distance (beyond audile range) inter-alia by way of installation of appropriate CCTV cameras. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tody for 14 days and on 31.01.2022, the co-accused and alleged mastermind in the instant matter, Tinku Yadav was granted default bail by the learned Special Chief Magistrate, Meerut in the light of no prosecution being launched by the respondents even after 60 days from his arrest. Pursuant to the arrest of petitioner's father, the petitioner received summons dated 02.02.2022 for appearance on 04.02.2022 and another summon dated 07.02.2022 for appearance on 11.02.2022, before Respondent No. 3, DGGI, Ghaziabad Regional Unit. 4. It is vehemently urged by the Ld. senior counsel for the petitioner that the instant petition raises pivotal issues relating to a case of forum-hunting by Senior Intelligence Officer, Director General of GST, Ghaziabad Regional unit (Respondent No. 3) who has not only indulged in abuse of the powers of arrest etc. vested in him but also chosen the jurisdiction of the Court in Meerut when no cause of action arose in the said jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the allegations are made against those companies which are all registered in Delhi as per CGST Act, 2017 and even the list of suppliers that the department is probing, are all registered in Del....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e petitioner is extremely distressed as the only person to look after the him is the petitioner's mother who is a senior citizen and in a frail state of health. It is further submitted that neither the petitioner nor his father had any connection with the transactions, except for recording some purported incriminating statements, no cogent evidence is available to connect the petitioner or his father with the ongoing investigations. It is further submitted that the petitioner's father was arrested in a high-handed manner and despite the petitioner being medically crippled to undertake even ordinary pursuits of life, having undergone a liver transplant surgery, he is being subjected to a witch-hunt and gross harassment. 7. It is further submitted that the offences under the CGST Act are compoundable and are not serious in nature. It is further submitted that the entire evidence present in the instant case is based on documents and thus, petitioner's custodial interrogation is not required. It is further submitted that the maximum punishment that could be imposed under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 is only an imprisonment for 5 years, apart from fine, thus, as per the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Chhatisgarh [(2014) 12 SCC 362] • DGGI vs. Daman Thakral [2021 (3) TMI 144] • Navinchandra N. Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra [(2000) 7 SCC 640] • Parveen Bhatia & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. • Vikas Jain Prop. Jaina Trading vs. DGGI, Zonal unit, Meerut (W.P (Crl.) 1494/2021) • Tarun Jain vs. Directorate General of GST Intelligence (Bail Application No. 3771/2021) • Arnesh Kumar vs. State of West Bengal [(2014) 8 SCC 273] • Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2021) 2 SCC 427] • Surinder Kr. Khanna vs. Intelligence Officer, DRI [(2018) 8 SCC 427] • Rajinder Arora vs. Union of India & Ors. (W.P.(C) 389 of 2010, Order dated 07.12.2010); • Sri Prakash Aggarwal vs. Union of India & Anr (Crl. Misc. Petition No. 16512/2010 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 85 of 2010, Order dated 04.08.2010); • Anandprakash Choudhari vs. Union of India & Anr. (CRL.M.P. No. 23956 of 2010 in W.P.(Crl) No. 122 of 2010, Order dated 24.11.2010); • Mahender Kumar Kundia vs. Union of India & Anr. [(2015) 15 SCC 419]; • ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tled to any protection or relief from this court as the possibility of the petitioner hampering the investigation at this point in time, cannot be ruled out. 11. Learned senior standing counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the following judgments: • Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2021) SCC OnLine SC 315] • Union of India vs. Padam Narain Aggarwal [(2008) 13 SCC 305] • Sandeep Jain vs. Additional Director DRI (Directorate of Revenue Intelligence) & Anr. (W.P.(C) 9561/2019) • Sandeep Jain vs. Additional Director DRI (Directorate of Revenue Intelligence) & Anr., (Review Pet. 387/2019 in W.P.(C) 9561/2019) • Poolpandi and Ors. vs. Respondent: Superintendent, Central Excise and Ors. [(1992) 3 SCC 259] • M/S Euphoria Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Directorate General Of GST Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit & Anr. (Writ Pet. (CRL.) NO. 139/2021) • National Building Construction Company Limited vs. Union of India and Ors. [2019[20] G.S.T.L. 515] • Indo International Tobacco Ltd. vs ADG, DGGI & Ors. (WP (C) No. 2420/2021) cited as [2022 S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut also the respondents would be at liberty to initiate coercive actions against this petitioner, in accordance with law. 14. The duration of the investigation depends upon the cooperation between of the parties and the complexity of the situation. 15. As the investigation is ongoing, we are not going much into and upon the facts of the case. Suffice it to state, that the petitioner has to attend hearing before the DRI Ahmedabad, as per summons issued to this petitioner." 14. In Sandeep Jain vs. Additional Director DRI (Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence) & Anr. (Review Pet. 387/2019 in W.P.(C) 9561/2019), in paragraphs 15-18, it is observed and held as under: "15. It is clear that the directions, in Jugal Kishore Samra, were issued in the special facts and circumstances of that case. A reading of the order, dated 16th April, 2012 supra, in Birendra Kumar Pandey, too, reveals that permission, to have an advocate's presence at visible, but not audible, distance, during the recording of the statement under Section 108 of the Act, was permitted because the petitioners, in that case, were apprehensive that coercive attempts could be made to extort confess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....est' we hold that there is no merit in the stand of appellant before us.' .." 15. In Indo International Tobacco Ltd. vs ADG, DGGI & Ors. (WP (C) No. 2420/2021) cited as [2022 SccOnline Del 90] in paragraphs 48,49 and 75, it is observed and held as under: "48. By the Notification No. 14/2017 dated 01.07.2017, the CBEC has appointed the Officers in the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI), Director General of Goods and Service Tax (DGGST), and Director General of Audit (DG Audit) as the Central Tax Officers and conferred on them the powers extended throughout the territory of India. 49. Therefore, by way of the above two Notifications, there are Central Tax Officers who are empowered to exercise all-India jurisdiction and those who enjoy the limited territorial jurisdiction. 75. At this stage, however, we may note the submissions of the learned ASG to the effect that all-India jurisdiction can be exercised only by a Central Tax Officer appointed as a 'proper officer' under Notification No. 14 of 2017 dated 01.07.2017. We are not agreeable to such an argument without limitation. In the course of investigating of a tax enti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the propositions of law, which could be culled out from the aforesaid decisions is as follows: i. The summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act are to be issued only after inquiry is initiated and at the stage of issuance of summons, the Court cannot interfere or grant unreasonable stay on investigation. ii. Any person against whom an enquiry is undertaken under the relevant provisions of the tax laws, does not ipso facto become an 'accused' until prosecution is launched. iii. The powers bestowed upon the officers appointed under numerous tax enactments for search and arrest are in effect intended to aid, assist and provide support to their main purpose of levying and collecting the taxes and duties. iv. Passing of any blanket orders without stating reasons would obstruct the investigation and could jeopardize the same. Therefore, such a broad directive is completely unjustified and before passing any blanket order, it is paramount to state the reasons for granting of any such interim relief or protection. 20. Now, coming to the jurisdiction, suffice it to say that the Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot go i....