AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 809
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Jharkhand State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 as also the provision of Integrated Goods and Services Act, 2017, read with clarifications issued from time to time, the authority once initiated the proceedings commencing from enquiry/ search and seizure, is empowered to complete the entire process of investigation and complete the modalities, in the case in hand State Goods and Services Tax and not by the Preventive Wing of Central Goods & Services Tax or by the Directorate General of Goods & Services Tax Intelligence. (b) Consequent upon holding and declaring that the initiation and conclusion by the prior authority is the rule of law, hence, the notices issued subsequently viz., (Annexure-3, Annexure-4, Annexure-5, Annexure- 7, Annexure-8, Annexure-10, Annexure-12 Series & Annexure-14) issued by the two different Wings of Central Goods & Services Tax be quashed and set aside and the State GST be allowed to carry the further proceedings. 2. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Petitioner filed an Interlocutory Application vide I.A. No. 9286/2023 inter-alia challenging the attachment of bank accounts of the Petitioner by issuing Form GST DRC-22 dated 30.04.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C 03, totaling to a sum of Rs. 3.42 Crores. Under the circumstances, since the petitioner has received summons from 3 Departments of GST, the petitioner has approached this Court, seeking a declaration that the authority who has initiated the proceedings prior in point of time, shall be the only authority to carry out the proceedings. In order to buttress the argument, the petitioner has relied upon Notification No. 39/2017-Central Tax dated 13.10.2017 and the Clarification bearing D.O.F. No. CBEC/20/43/01/2017- GST(Pt.) dated 5.10.2018, in terms of which, it is sought to be impressed: 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, recovery, filing of appeal etc. arising out of such action. 4. In other words, if an officer of the Central tax authority initiates intelligence-based enforcement action against a taxpay....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der both the CGST Act and the respective SGST/UTGST Act. 3.3 The confusion seems to be arising from the fact that, the said sub-section provides for notification by the Government if such cross empowerment is to be subjected to conditions. It means that notification would be required only if any conditions are to be imposed. For example, Notification No. 39/2017-CT dated 13.10.2017 restricts powers of the State Tax officers for the purposes of refund and they have been specified as the proper officers only under section 54 and 55 of the CGST Act and not under rule 96 of the CGST Rules, 2017 (IGST Refund on exports). If no notification is issued to impose any condition, it means that the officers of State and Centre have been appointed as proper officer for all the purpose of the CGST Act and SGST Acts. 4. Further, it may kindly be noted that a notification under section 6(1) of the CGST Act would be part of subordinate legislation which instead of empowering the officer under the Act, can only be used to impose conditions on the powers given to the officers by the section. In the absence or any such conditions, the power of Cross- empowerment under section 6(1) of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under the signature of Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes (Investigation Bureau), Ranchi Circle, Ranchi. 6. Mr. Pasari has further contended that attachment of Bank Accounts by issuing GST DRC 22 has been carried out, exercising powers under section 83 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, which is in conflict with the notification issued by the CBEC from time to time, concerning guidelines for attachment of Bank Accounts. In order to buttress this submissions, the petitioner has relied upon the judgments rendered in the case of Vipul Chandra Pursottam Das Mahant Vs. Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes passed by the Gujarat High Court in R/Special Civil Application No. 9488 of 2023 dated 22.06.2023, relevant portion of which reads as follows: 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, when the respondent no. 4 has initiated the inquiry and inspected the documents and carried out the inspection at the place of the petitioner and inquiry is going on in connection with five different Firms at present including M/s. J.M. Enterprise, for which, the summon was issued by the Respondent No. 1, whereas M/s Galaxy Enterprise, summon was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed 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, recovery, filing of appeal etc. arising out of such action. 4. In other words, if an officer of the Central tax authority initiates intelligence based enforcement action against a taxpayer administratively assigned to State tax authority, the officers of Central tax authority would not transfer the said case to its Sate tax counterpart and would themselves take the case to its logical conclusions. 5. Similar position would remain in case of intelligence based enforcement action initiated by o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Thus in terms of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the CGST Act and subsection (1) of section 6 of the respective State GST Acts respective State Tax officers and the Central Tax officers respectively are authorised to be the proper officers for the purposes of respective Acts and no separate notification is required for exercising the said powers in this case by the Central Tax Officers under the provisions of the State GST Act. It is noteworthy in this context that the registered person in GST are registered under both the CGST Act and the respective SGST/UTGST Act. 3.3 The confusion seems to be arising from the fact that, the said subsection provides for notification by the Government if such cross empowerment is to be subjected to conditions. It means that notification would be required only if any conditions are to be imposed. For example, Notification No. 39/2017-CT dated 13.10.2017 restricts powers of the State Tax officers for the purposes of refund and they have been specified as the proper officers only under section 54 and 55 of the CGST Act and not under rule 96 of the CGST Rules, 2017 (IGST Refund on exports). If no notification is issued to impose any condition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nications dated 22 March, 2021 issued by the Superintendent, Range - III, Park Street Division, CGST & CX does not refer to any of the earlier proceedings, which have been initiated against the appellants." 9. Mr. Pasari lastly submits that the petitioner having suo-moto deposited an amount of Rs. 40.00 lakhs and having reversed an amount of Rs. 3.42 crores, clearly goes on to suggest that the petitioner is not fly by the night assessee and has been discharging his statutory obligations under the Act. The petitioner has also contended that the attachment of Bank Accounts is bad in law, since the same suffers from the vices of excessive jurisdiction, inasmuch as, till date there is no determination of any liability whatsoever and the petitioner is not in a position to understand as to whom he has to furnish documents or give statement, inasmuch as, the petitioner cannot be made to succumb to the jurisdiction of all the three departments and as such, the attachment also is bad in law. 10. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respective Respondents, inter-alia denying the allegation and contending therein: 1) Respondent No. 5 (DGGI) 4. M/s Manish Trading Com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es like West Bengal, Chhattisgarh, Delhi etc. and utilized it by passing it to other states GSTIN entity like Bihar, Odisha etc.. Hence the instant investigations against the said petitioner is spread over inter-states' jurisdiction and DGGI having pan India jurisdiction is most suitable to investigate such cases. State GST normally prefers to transfer such cases to DGGI. 6. The instant proceedings have not been initiated by the State GST authority but by the centre at Apex level i.e., DGGI, New Delhi and as such DGGI, JRU, Jamshedpur is well within its jurisdiction under Section 6 of the Act read with letter F.No. CBEC/20/43/01/2017-GST(pt) dated 05.10.2018 and letter F.No. CBEC-20/10/07/2019-GST dated 22.06.2020 to proceed and conclude it. 2) Respondent No. 4 (Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX, Ranchi) 5. Instant proceedings have been initiated by the other formation of CGST i.e, CGST & CX, Jamshedpur Commissionerate, CGST & CX. Raipur Commissionerate and further follow-up action was initiated by the Respondent no. 4. 7. The investigation conducted by the Respondent no. 4 is based upon E-way Bill data revelation that the Petitioner had rece....