2018 (4) TMI 1232 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – 2018 (16) G. S. T. L. 448 (Mad.) – Jurisdiction for investigating the service tax matter – centralized registration does not mention any place other than Chennai- transfer of files pertaining to the petitioner's case to the Jurisdictional Authorities/ Officers, viz., the respondents 3 and 4 for further proceedings – Circular No.1056/05/2017-C.X. dt. 29.07.2017 – Held that: – It is settled position that summons cannot be quashed or injuncted and this court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta v. M.M.Exports [2007 (3) TMI 265 – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] held that the writ petition was not maintainable to quash the summons and dismissed the writ petition.
–
The respondents 1 and 2 have categorically stated that investigation is being carried out and the petitioner was carrying on business in Mumbai and in the Centralised Registration Certificate the Mumbai office was not registered – further, the Circular referred by the petitioner do
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
of "M/s.Meena Advertisers". In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the summons dated 02.01.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent and to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to transfer the files pertaining to the petitioner's case to the Jurisdictional Authorities/ Officers, viz., the respondents 3 and 4 for further proceedings. 3. The petitioner's case is largely based upon a circular issued by the Central Board on 29.07.2017 in Circular No.1056/05/2017-C.X. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to para 3.2 of the Circular, submitted that as far as show cause notice issued to the assessees having Centralised registration is concerned, the jurisdictional authority in the re-organised CGST/Central Excise Commissionerate exercising control over the business location, which had taken Centralised Registration (in the previous regime), may take up the adjudication of the legacy notice irrespective of the fa
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
learned counsel further submits that since the petitioner were doing business in Mumbai and also issuing invoices from their Mumbai office, which was not mentioned in their Centralised Registration Certificate as Service Tax, it is imperative on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct investigation to safeguard the interest of Government Revenue. The learned counsel also referred to various other circulars in support of his contentions, which empowered the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct the investigation. 5. In the aforesaid factual background, the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. It is settled position that summons cannot be quashed or injuncted and this court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta v. M.M.Exports reported in 2007 (212) E.L.T.165 (S.C.) held that the writ petition was not maintainable to quash the summons and dismissed the writ petition. Similar issue was considered in W.P.Nos.30066 & 30094 of 2017, dated 07.01.2017 and the w
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
unsel appearing for the petitioners is that the goods were imported through Chennai Port cleared by the Customs Authorities at Chennai and the second respondent being an Officer situated in Ahmadabad, would have no jurisdiction to summon the petitioners. In Ram Narain Bishwanth & Ors.,(supra), goods were imported by the respondent therein, which was cleared at Paradip Port in the State of Orissa, the goods were then transported to Howrah in State of West Bengal where they were seized by the Customs Authorities on the ground that they had been imported on the strength of fictitious licences. The Department held that the goods were liable for confiscation, which was challenged before the CEGAT which held that the Customs Authorities in West Bengal, had no jurisdiction to pass such an order and the appeal was disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by directing the Customs Authorities at Paradip, State of Orissa to initiate proceedings against the respondent on the ground that th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ghtly pointed out by the learned Senior Standing counsel for the respondents both the decisions arose out of the proceedings under the Customs Act, where the jurisdiction of the Officer/Commissionerate was subject matter of consideration for which purpose, the Port of import was determined as the jurisdictional Commissionerate. In the instant case, the exercise done by the second respondent is investigation and it does not pertain to a single consignment imported by the petitioners. By the summons, dated 06.11.2017, the petitioners have been called upon to produce documents pertaining to the imports done for the period from 2013-14 to 2016-17. Infact, this Court in the earlier Writ Petition specifically directed that the summons should set out reasons for which the petitioner is being summoned. This has been explicitly stated with summons dated 06.11.2017. Therefore, it is not a singular transaction, which is being investigated, but past transaction as well. This has been held to be pe
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
on on the enquiry or investigation under a statute is uncalled for. We have no doubt that such type of interference would impede the even course of enquiry or investigation into the serious allegations now pending. For what purpose the Division Bench made such interference with the functions of the statutory authorities, which they are bound to exercise under law, is not discernible from the order under challenge. It is not the function of the court to monitor investigation processes so long as such investigation does not transgress any provision of law. It must be left to the investigating agency to decide the venue, the timings and the questions and the manner of putting such questions to persons involved in such offences A blanket order fully insulating a person from arrest would make his interrogation a mere ritual [vide State rep by the CBI v. Anil Sharma, JT (1997) 7651]- 14. It was argued that the notification No.17/2002-Cus.(NT), dated 07.03.2002, though confers all India juris
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
he Gazetted officer. Hence that question is concluded against the appellants. 10. A glance at Sec.108 of the Customs Act, under which the summons is given, would suggest that it is a power given to any Gazetted officer of the Customs Department to summon any person during any enquiry which the officer would make in connection with the smuggling of any goods. A summons can be for the production of the documents or those in possession or under the control of the persons summoned and such a summoned person is bound to attend and to state the truth upon any subject respecting which he is examined by the summoning officer. These powers are given obviously with an idea to check the smuggling. The definition of 'smuggling' is to be found in Sec.2(39) of the Act, which is as under: "smuggling in relation to any goods, means any act or omission which will render such goods liable to confiscation under Sec.111 or section 113" When Sec.111 is seen, it is clear that any goods bro
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ent of customs duty on certain conditions then, the Customs Officer will have all the powers to enquire as to whether the conditions, subject to which the said duty is exempted, have been followed or not and it is obvious that, in case of the breach of those conditions, those goods will be smuggled goods. We, therefore, do not see as to how a simple summons issued under Sec.108 of the Act could be termed to be a proceeding without jurisdiction, when it is the inherent power of the every Gazetted officer of the Customs Department to enquire into the matter of smuggling. 6. By applying the above decision to the facts of this case, the only conclusion that has to be arrived at is to dismiss the writ petition. The respondents 1 and 2 have categorically stated that investigation is being carried out and the petitioner was carrying on business in Mumbai and in the Centralised Registration Certificate the Mumbai office was not registered. Further more, the Circular referred by the petitioner
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =