TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 143
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmons dated 03.03.2022 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner states that his statement was recorded on 16.03.2022 and that he had submitted all the relevant documents in his possession. The petitioner also claims that the officers of the Jurisdictional Commissionerate collected an amount of Rs.50,12,000/-, purportedly under Section 74 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter 'the Act'), without issuing any show cause notice to him. 3. The petitioner claims that thereafter on 18.04.2022, the officers of respondents no. 4 and 5 (Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Gurugram - hereafter 'the DGGI') conducted a search in the petitioner's principal places of business, his residence, and the godown. The petitioner's business premises and the godown were sealed by the said officers after conducting a search. Thereafter, the concerned officer of the DGGI issued a summon to the petitioner seeking certain documents. The petitioner claims that he made representations informing the concerned officers of the DGGI regarding the proceedings commenced by respondent no. 3 and calling upon them to de-seal the premises and refrain from any further proceedings, as paralle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 3 as well as the DGGI sought time to obtain instructions whether the issue regarding parallel investigations could be resolved by transferring the investigation to one agency. This was recorded in the order dated 24.03.2023 and the hearing of the present petition was deferred to 04.05.2023. It is relevant to note that at that stage no objection was raised by Ms Manish, the learned counsel for the petitioner, regarding the consolidation of the investigations and conducting the investigations by one agency. 11. This petition was listed on 04.05.2023 but on that date the learned counsel appearing for the respondents had sought further time to obtain instructions in terms of the order dated 24.03.2023. 12. Thereafter on 25.05.2023, Mr. Singla submitted that the issue of parallel investigations was resolved and that he had instructions to state that the investigation conducted by respondents no. 3 would be transferred to the DGGI and its officers would continue the investigations from the same stage as obtaining before the Jurisdictional Commissionerate (respondent no. 3). However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner objected to the same. According to the petitione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he petitioner had wrongfully availed the ITC from non-existent firms. 18. It is apparent from the above that the focus of the DGGI's investigation is somewhat different from the focus of the investigation being commenced by the Jurisdictional Commissionerate. The Jurisdictional Commissionerate is not investigating the diversion of agricultural grade urea. However, it cannot be disputed that the investigation regarding the availment of the ITC is common to the investigations conducted by both the authorities. 19. Ms. Anjali Jha Manish, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the DGGI could not proceed with the investigation in view of Section 6(2)(b) of the Act. She also relied on the Circular dated 05.10.2018 (D.O. F.No. CBEC/20/43/01 /2017- GST (Pt.)) issued by the Ministry of Finance in support of her contention that it was not permissible to transfer the investigation by one authority to other. She submitted that there is no express provision under the Act for affecting any such transfer. 20. Mr. Singla has handed over a communication dated 23.08.2023, which indicates that the DGGI is willing for consolidation of the investigation being conducted in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 officer appointed under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act." 24. It is clear from Section 6(1) of the Act that it contains a non-obstante clause and also empowers officers appointed under the State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter 'the SGST Act') or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter 'the UGST Act') to be appointed as proper officers for the purposes of the Act. 25. Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act expressly provides that if a proper officer issues an order under Act, he shall also issue an order under the SGST or the UGST Act as authorized by the said enactments under intimation of the Jurisdictional Officer. 26. In conformity with the scheme of statutes in respect of Goods and Services Tax Act (the Act, the SGST Act and the UGST Act) officers under any of the said statutes can be authorized as proper officers for the purposes of proceeding under the other GST statut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 16.01.2017 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 enforcement of intelligence based action is recorded at para 28 of Agenda note no. 3 in the minutes of the meeting which reads as follows:- "viii. Both the Central and State tax administrations shall have the power to take intelligence-based enforcement action in respect of the entire value chain" 3. It is accordingly clarified that the officers of both Central tax and State tax are authorized to initiate intelligence based enforcement action on the entire taxpayer's base irrespective of the administrative assignment of the taxpayer to any authority. The authority which initiates such action is empowered to complete the entire process of investigation, issuance of SCN, adjudication....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvestigations in respect of a subject matter may require to be expanded as the investigation progresses. The investigating agencies are not constrained in any straight jacket formula, which would prevent them from completing their investigation. However, the same does not imply that if the course of investigations commenced separately by two authorities coincide at some stage; the authorities cannot consolidate the same. 35. In the present case, the focus of investigation by the DGGI was in respect of the diversion of agriculture urea for sale as technical grade urea. The issue regarding wrongful availment of the ITC is also inextricably linked with the subject matter of investigation by respondent no. 3. 36. If the provisions of Section 6(2)(b) of the Act are read in a restrictive manner, the result would be that the DGGI could continue the investigation regarding the diversion of agriculture urea for sale as technical urea and respondent no. 3 would continue the investigation regarding wrongful availment of the ITC on the basis of fake invoices. It is difficult to accept that the proper officers are constrained to not expand the scope of investigation. The scope of investig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n be given an overarching effect to cover all the situations that may arise in the implementation of the CGST and the SGST Acts. The Circular cannot be extended to cover all and myriad situations that may arise in the administration and the functioning of the GST structure, now being governed by the CGST Act; the SGST Act; the UTGST Act; and the IGST Act. Section 6 of the CGST Act and the above said Circular clearly has a limited application, which is of ensuring that there is no overlapping exercise of jurisdiction by the Central and the State Tax Officers. It is to bring harmony between the Centre and the State in the implementation of the GST regime, with the two not jostling for jurisdiction over a taxpayer. It is, however, not intended to answer a situation where due to complexity or vastness of the inquiry or proceedings or involvement of number of taxpayers or otherwise, one authority willingly cedes jurisdiction to the other which also has jurisdiction over such inquiry/proceedings/taxpayers. 67. Neither Section 6 of the CGST Act nor the SGST Act nor the Circular dated 05.10.2018, therefore, apply to the fact situation presented by the two petitions before us as th....