M/S Triveni Civi-Tech PVT.LTD. vs. The Senior Intelligence Officer

Held

The Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. The petitioner-Company was directed to file their reply to the summon(s) issued to them within one week, by 02.12.2019. The authority was then directed to adjudicate the matter within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such reply. Crucially, the Court ordered that until the adjudication was completed, the directors of the petitioner-Company would not be arrested. The petitioner was also informed that it was open for them to challenge the order adjudicating the matter. No specific findings were recorded on the legality or otherwise of the powers exercised or the actions taken by the authorities, as the matter was disposed of on procedural directions.

Facts

The petitioner-Company filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the actions of the Opposite Parties, specifically Opposite Party No. 1. The petitioner sought to declare the exercise of power under Section 83 of the Finance Act and Section 70 of the CGST Act, purportedly for investigation without prior notice, as illegal and arbitrary. They also challenged threats to deposit an 'imaginary amount' of money towards service tax before the actual liability was determined. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that proceedings initiated without a show cause notice, and the search and seizure of personal files of individuals other than the petitioner, were illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner also sought a writ of mandamus to restrain coercive action until the writ petition was disposed of.

Key Issues

1. Whether the exercise of purported power under Section 83 of the Finance Act and Section 70 of the CGST Act, in the guise of investigation and in the absence of any notice, is illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction? 2. Whether the threat by Opposite Party No. 1 to deposit an imaginary amount of money towards service tax, before determining the actual tax liability of the petitioner in accordance with law, is illegal and unauthorized? 3. Whether the proceedings initiated by Opposite Party No. 1 without any show cause notice and the conducting of search and seizure of personal detail files of persons other than the petitioner, by misinterpreting the provisions under law, are illegal and without jurisdiction? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the actions taken by the authorities were illegal and without jurisdiction, particularly the exercise of powers without issuing prior notice or a show cause notice, and the alleged threat to deposit an imaginary amount. They also contended that search and seizure of personal files of third parties was an overreach. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment records that Shri T. K. Satapathy, learned Senior Standing Counsel, entered appearance for the Additional Director, Director General of Goods & Service Tax Intelligence, Bhubaneswar (opposite party no.2). However, the specific arguments made by the revenue are not detailed in the provided text.