Sudesh Rakesh Tirkey vs. Union Of INDIA Through The Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax And Central Excise Ranchi

Held

The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Ranjeet Kushwaha, sought permission to withdraw the writ petition on instructions, stating that the petitioner did not wish to pursue the matter. The Court, in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. The Court did not delve into the merits of the issues raised by the petitioner regarding the jurisdiction of the respondent authorities under the GST regime concerning pre-GST period investigations. Therefore, there is no finding on the questions of law or fact that were framed, nor any reasoning or ratio decidendi established by the Court on the substantive claims. The operative direction was solely to dismiss the petition as withdrawn.

Facts

The petitioner, Sudesh Rakesh Tirkey, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi challenging the jurisdiction of respondent authorities to conduct audits, inquiries, investigations, or searches concerning the period from Financial Year 2015-16 to 2017-18. The petitioner argued that Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, which governed service tax, was omitted by Section 173 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Service Tax Rules, 1994, were not saved by Section 174 of the CGST Act. Consequently, the petitioner contended that the respondent authorities lacked jurisdiction to take any action under the omitted provisions. The petition also sought to quash letters dated 25.09.2020 and 12.10.2020 issued by respondent no.3, purportedly under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Section 174 of the CGST Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether respondent authorities have the jurisdiction, competence, or authority to initiate any audit, inquiry, investigation, search, or other exercise under the omitted Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, in light of Section 173 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which omitted the said chapter, and Section 174 of the CGST Act, which did not save the provisions of the Service Tax Rules, 1994? 2. Whether respondent authorities have the jurisdiction and competence to conduct any investigation concerning the petitioner's books of accounts for Financial Years 2015-16 to 2017-18 after the omission of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, by virtue of Section 173 of the CGST Act? 3. Whether the letter dated 25.09.2020 and the reminder letter dated 12.10.2020, issued by respondent no.3, are illegal, without jurisdiction, and beyond the competence of the respondent authorities, as they were purportedly issued under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Section 174 of the CGST Act? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the omission of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, by Section 173 of the CGST Act, and the non-saving of Service Tax Rules, 1994, by Section 174 of the CGST Act, divested the respondent authorities of their jurisdiction to take any action or conduct investigations pertaining to the period prior to the GST regime. Respondents' Contention: The judgment records that Mr. Amit Kumar appeared for the respondents (CGST Department). No specific arguments were recorded for the respondents.