AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1866
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s were also recorded under section 70 of the Act. Based on such seizures it was found that goods were allegedly purchased from Expandable Enterprise Private Limited and transported through M/s. Ravi Transport Service. Upon further enquiries, the fact of transportation was categorically denied by the transporter M/s. Ravi Transport Service. In this background, after conducting necessary inquiries and based on available records, it was concluded that the petitioners had availed of Input Cash Credit without any actual movement of goods and were liable to pay CGST. 3. Pursuant to the above, a show-cause notice dated 29 March, 2023 was issued under section 74 of the Act. The petitioners availed of their opportunity of hearing and participated in the proceedings and ultimately an order dated 3 December, 2025 imposing a demand of GST, penalty and interest was passed. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioners instead of availing of their statutory remedy of appeal under section 107 of the CGST Act, filed this writ petition not only challenging the order dated 3 December, 2025 but also challenging the Circulars dated 26 June, 2017, 5 July, 2017, 9 February, 2018, 12 Ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... total value of GST evasion was to the extent of Rs. 1,90,53,714/- and the petitioners were found to be in contravention of the Act. 8. Pursuant to the above, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners. The petitioners replied to the demand-cum-show-cause notice. A personal hearing was also granted to the petitioners. In this background, the impugned order dated 3 December, 2025 was passed which is elaborately reasoned and deals with all the issues raised by the parties. 9. There is no merit even prima facie on the aspect of jurisdiction raised by the petitioners. In M/s. Aka Logistics Private Limited and Anr. Vs. Union of India (Supra), a Division Bench of the High Court at Jharkhand had on a similar question of jurisdiction raised by the petitioners held as follows: "49. The notification dated 01st July, 2017 and 09th February, 2018 thus confers power upon the Additional Director General, Goods and Services Tax Intelligence or Additional Director General, Goods and Services Tax or Additional Director General, Audit to act as Commissioner and the Deputy/Assistant Director, Goods and Services Tax Intelligence or Deputy/Assistant Director, Goods and Services Ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts in any inquiry in the same manner in the case of a Civil Court under the CPC. Now, as per the definition of 'proper officer as contained in section 2(91), a 'proper officer' in relation to any function to be performed under the CGST Act means the Commissioner or the officer of the Central Tax, who is assigned that function by the Commissioner in the Board. It is pertinent to note that as stated in the petition itself, the respondent No. 3 is an officer of Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) holding the designation of Senior Intelligence Officer, who was appointed as the Central Tax Officer with all the powers under the CGST Act and IGST Act and the Rules made thereunder, as are exercisable by the Central Tax Officers of the corresponding rank of Superintendent as specified in the Notification No. 14 of 2017-CT dated 1-7-2017 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. It is further pertinent to note that the respondent No. 3 being the officer of the Central Tax and the Superintendent under the CGST Act by virtue of the said Notification dated 1-7-2017, he was also assigned the powers of proper officer by the Board vide Circular d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... relation to various Sections of CGST Act and the Rules made thereunder by issuing the Circular in question, the question of issuing Notification for delegation of powers by the Commissioner as contemplated under section 167 of the CGST Act does not arise. Mr. Rastogi appears to have misread the powers of the Board to assign the officers to perform the function as proper officers in relation to the various Sections of the CGST Act, as the delegation of powers by the Commissioner to the other authority or the officer as contemplated in section 167 of the CGST Act. The Court, therefore, does not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Rastogi that the respondent No. 3 was not the 'proper officer' as per the definition contained in section 2(91) of the CGST Act, and therefore, had no powers to issue summons under section 70 of the CGST Act. 15. The Court also does not find any force in the submission made by Mr. Rastogi that two parallel proceedings in connection with the same issue were not sustainable. It may be noted that the communication dated 11-11-2020 was issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Kolkata Zonal Unit, requesting the office of the pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt can also note whether such challenge is made at the earliest point of time when the statute came to be introduced or any provision was brought into the statute book or any long time-gap exists as between the date of the enactment and the date when the challenge is made. It should also be noted as to whether the grounds of challenge based on the facts pleaded and the implication of the provision really has any nexus apart from the grounds of challenge made. With reference to those relevant provisions, the Court should be conscious of the position as to the extent of public interest involved when the provision operates the field as against the prevention of such operation. The Court should also examine the extent of financial implications by virtue of the operation of the provision vis-à-vis the State and alleged extent of sufferance by the person who seeks to challenge based on the alleged invalidity of the provision with particular reference to the vires made. Even if the writ court is of the view that the challenge raised requires to be considered, then again it will have to be examined, while entertaining the challenge raised for consideration, whether it calls for prev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was brought into the statute book. The Court owes a duty to consider whether any long time-gap exists as between the date of the enactment and the date when the challenge is made. (c) The Writ Court should also consider whether the grounds of challenge based on the facts pleaded and the implication of the provision really has any nexus apart from the grounds of challenge made. (d) With reference to the relevant provisions, the Writ Court should be conscious of the position as to the extent of public interest involved when the provision operates the field as against the prevention of such operation. (e) The Writ Court should also examine the extent of financial implications, if any, by virtue of the operation of the provision vis-a-vis the State and the alleged extent of sufferance by the person who seeks to challenge based on the alleged invalidity of the provision with particular reference to the vires made. (f) Even if the Writ Court is of the opinion that the challenge deserves to be considered, then, again, it should be examined while entertaining the challenge raised for consideration, whether it calls for prevention of the operation of the....