The search action is lawful and within the confines of the law, the recorded reasons to believe in terms of Section 67 justify the action. The absence of signatures does not manifest an absence of delegation of power in favour of the team which conducted the search action.
Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017—Search & Seizure -- The petitioner submitted that the State Authority has conducted search in relation to the same period, despite the Petitioner being earlier subjected to search action by the Central Authorities, which was impugned before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The action of the State authorities is unlawful. The petitioner submitted that no parallel enquiries on the same issues by the two authorities can take place. The respondent counsel submitted that there is no parallel investigation being carried out, as the fresh notice by State is confined to 2020-21, whereas the SCN issued by the Central Authority pertains to 2017-18 and 2018-19. The court relied the letter issued by the CBIC dated 5th October, 2018 which states that if an officer of the Central GST initiates intelligence- based enforcement action against a taxpayer administratively assigned to State GST, the officers of the former would not transfer the said case to their counterparts in the latter department and they would themselves take the case to its logical conclusion.
Held that:-The Hon’ble High Court held that the Respondents would be bound by the circulars and in case the action of the State and Central Authorities is overlapping, the Petitioner would be at liberty to take action to impugn the same.