Ms Ampl Nkas Jv Represented Through Its Manager Sri Om Prakash Pareek vs. The Principal Director General The Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax Intelligence

Held

The Court noted that the respondent-DGGI, in its counter affidavit, had categorically submitted that the impugned letters had been withdrawn. A copy of the withdrawal letter was enclosed with the counter affidavit. In light of this submission and the withdrawal of the impugned letters, the Court found that the writ petitions had become infructuous. Therefore, the Court disposed of all the writ petitions as infructuous without delving into the merits of the petitioners' contention regarding the jurisdiction of the Senior Intelligence Officer under Section 150 of the CGST Act, 2017, or the applicability of the repealed CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. No specific finding was recorded on the legal questions raised by the petitioners, as the matter was resolved by the withdrawal of the impugned action.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s. AMPL-NKAS(JV), M/s.DECO AMPL BKB (JV), M/s. AMBEY MINING PVT. LTD, M/s. AMPL-MIPL-CCL(JV), and M/s. NKAS SERVICES PVT. LTD., filed writ petitions before the Jharkhand High Court. They sought to quash letters issued by the Senior Intelligence Officer of the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI), Regional Unit, Jamshedpur. The petitioners contended that the authority issuing the letters lacked the power to do so under Section 150 of the CGST Act, 2017, making the letters without jurisdiction and void. The DGGI filed a counter affidavit stating that the impugned letters had been withdrawn. Consequently, the respondents argued that the writ petitions had become infructuous.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Senior Intelligence Officer of the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) has the power to issue letters under Section 150 of the CGST Act, 2017, for carrying out investigations under the Act or erstwhile CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which stood repealed? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners argued that the power to issue such letters was not conferred upon any authority or agency under Section 150 of the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, the letters issued by the respondent no. 2 were without jurisdiction and void ab initio. They further contended that Section 150 of the CGST Act could not be invoked for investigations under the Act or the repealed CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, as these were superseded by Section 174 read with Section 173 of the CGST Act. Respondent's Contention: The respondent-DGGI, through its learned counsel, made a categorical submission based on the averments in the counter affidavit that the impugned letters had been withdrawn by the respondents. Consequently, the respondent argued that the writ petitions had become infructuous.