The issue which arises for consideration is that once an investigation into the alleged illegal functioning of the companies has started and is being carried out by one agency which is DGGI, Headquarter, even if the other zonal agencies have jurisdiction all over the India, should investigations be carried out for different quarters by different agencies?
Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017— Search and Seizure -- The petitioner submitted that on 30th November, 2019, the respondent no. 2 i.e GGI Headquarters conducted a search on his four premises and they were arrested for offences punishable under Section 69 read with Section 132(1)(b) and (c) of the Act, 2017. The allegations against them were that they received fake invoices and availed ITC on them. The petitioners were granted bail by the learned CMM vide order dated 23rd December, 2019. The petitioners submitted that on 22nd January, 2021, the respondent No. 1 DGGI, Meerut again searched his office premises. His grievance is that once investigation was carried out by DGGI, Headquarter, the entire investigation for alleged offences ought to have been carried out by the same agency.
Held that:-The Hon’ble High Court listed the petition for consideration on 25th March, 2021 and directed that in the meantime, no coercive action will be taken against the petitioners.
The issue which arises for consideration is that once an investigation into the alleged illegal functioning of the companies has started and is being carried out by one agency which is DGGI, Headquarter, even if the other zonal agencies have jurisdiction all over the India, should investigations be carried out for different quarters by different agencies?
Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017— Search and Seizure -- The petitioner submitted that on 30th November, 2019, the respondent no. 2 i.e GGI Headquarters conducted a search on his four premises and they were arrested for offences punishable under Section 69 read with Section 132(1)(b) and (c) of the Act, 2017. The allegations against them were that they received fake invoices and availed ITC on them. The petitioners were granted bail by the learned CMM vide order dated 23rd December, 2019. The petitioners submitted that on 22nd January, 2021, the respondent No. 1 DGGI, Meerut again searched his office premises. His grievance is that once investigation was carried out by DGGI, Headquarter, the entire investigation for alleged offences ought to have been carried out by the same agency.
Held that:-The Hon’ble High Court listed the petition for consideration on 25th March, 2021 and directed that in the meantime, no coercive action will be taken against the petitioners.