M/S Damoh Infrastructure vs. The Commissioner

Held

The Court held that the question of whether the summons was issued by a proper Officer, as defined under Section 2(92) of the GST Act, is a matter that can be raised before the authority that issued the summons. The Court refrained from commenting on the merits of the petitioner's claim, including the legality and propriety of the credit claimed, as these involved factual disputes not suitable for adjudication in a writ petition. The Court disposed of the petition with a liberty granted to the petitioner to raise all factual and jurisdictional objections before the authority issuing the impugned summons. The Court expressed the hope that the authority would consider and decide these objections in accordance with the law and expeditiously.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Damoh Infrastructure, through its proprietor Sunil Arora, filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The petition challenged a summons issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner sought to quash the summons, declare the credit claimed by them as legal and proper, and grant interim relief. The respondents were the Commissioner, Central GST and Excise, the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner, Central GST and Excise, Damoh Range-I, and the Senior Intelligence Officer of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Jabalpur. The court noted that the prayers relating to the legality and propriety of the credit claimed involved factual disputes unsuitable for a writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the summons issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed on the ground that it was issued by an incompetent authority? (Question of law) 2. Whether the credit claimed by the petitioner is legal and proper? (Question of fact) Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the summons was issued by an incompetent authority. The petitioner's counsel assailed the legality and validity of the summons primarily on this ground. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments made by the revenue or state respondents.