M/S Gopeshwar Iron And Steel Works PVT. LTD. And Anr vs. The Superintendent,CGST And Cx,Range,1 Durgapur 1 Division,Bolpur Commissionerate And Ors

Held

The Court allowed the intra-court appeal, setting aside the order of the learned Single Bench that declined to grant an interim order. The Court held that the notice dated 17.04.2023, issued by the Superintendent, CGST & Central Excise, L-1, Circle-III, Durgapur 1 Division, Durgapur, shall remain stayed until the disposal of the writ petition WPA 10506 of 2023. The Court found merit in the appellants' contention that a jurisdictional issue arises when a fresh notice under Section 61 is issued by the Range Officer after the Audit Department had already conducted scrutiny and settled the matter for the same period, and the DGGI is also investigating. The Court directed the respondent to file an affidavit-in-opposition in the writ petition, after which the writ petition will be heard and disposed of on merits. The applicability of the cited case law, M/s. Suresh Kumar PP v DGGI, was deferred to the hearing of the writ petition.

Facts

The appellants, M/s. Gopeshwar Iron and Steel Works Private Limited and another, filed an intra-court appeal against an order dated July 3, 2023, by which a learned Single Bench declined to grant an interim order. The core of the dispute revolves around a notice dated April 17, 2023, issued by the Superintendent, CGST & CX, Range 1, Durgapur, purportedly under Section 61 of the CGST Act, 2017. The appellants contend that for the same tax period, the Audit Department had previously issued a notice, called for documents, and subsequently closed the case with an order dated March 25, 2022. Furthermore, the DGGI had also issued summons for the same period, and the matter is pending before them. The appellants argue that the Superintendent's notice is without jurisdiction as the matter was already settled by the Audit Department and is under investigation by the DGGI.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authority can proceed further pursuant to the notice dated 17.04.2023 purported to have been issued under Section 61 of the CGST Act, 2017, when the same tax period was previously scrutinized by the Audit Department, which concluded with an order dated 25.03.2022, and is also under investigation by the DGGI. Petitioner's Arguments: The appellants argued that the notice dated 17.04.2023 issued by the Superintendent, CGST & Central Excise, is without jurisdiction. They contended that the Audit Department had already conducted scrutiny for the same period, accepted the submitted documents, and closed the case by an order dated 25.03.2022. They further submitted that the DGGI is also investigating the matter for the same period, and the documents called for by the Superintendent are identical to those previously furnished and settled. They relied on the provisions of Section 61(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, arguing that once satisfactory explanations are provided or corrective measures are taken, appropriate action under Section 65 can be ensured, implying no further action by the Range Officer in this manner. Revenue's Arguments: The learned standing counsel for the respondents submitted that directions were received from the Analytical Wing of the Department, which necessitated the Superintendent to issue the notice dated 17.04.2023. The respondent department also placed reliance on the decision in M/s. Suresh Kumar PP v DGGI, suggesting that investigations can proceed in parallel.