Satyam Castings (P) Ltd. v. Dy. Director, DGGI

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers 2024 TaxPub(GST) 922 (Ori-HC) IN THE ORISSA HIGH COURT S.K. SAHOO J. Satyam Castings (P) Ltd. v. Dy. Director, DGGI W.P. (C) No. 2530 of 2024 and W.P. (C) No. 24358 of 2022 5 April, 2024 Petitioners by: U.C. Behura, Advocate Opposite Parties by: T.K. Satapathy, Sr. Standing Counsel (CGST), Sunil Mishra, Standing Counsel (CT and GST) JUDGMENT *Chakradhari Sharan Singh, CJ.* Since both the writ applications are based on same set of facts and pleadings on record, they have been heard together and they are being disposed of by the present common order and judgment. 2. We have heard Mr. U.C. Behura, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. T.K. Satapathy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Opposite Party-Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) and Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the CT and GST. 3. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 ( in short, GST Act) and is a private limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act. It is also registered as a medium scale industry for manufacture of caste iron products. 4. On 30-3-2022, the Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax, Zonal Unit, Bhubaneswar (opposite party No.1) along with an investigation team had visited the petitioners place of business and seized certain records and books of accounts available there, under section 67 of the GST Act on the reasoning that those documents were relevant to the proceedings under the GST Act. It is the petitioners case that opposite party No.1 had conducted the investigation and seized the records and accounts for the financial years 2017 to 2021-2022 and then issued summons under section 70 of the CGST Act, fixing the date of personal appearance on 01-4-2022. It is also the petitioners case that the accounts for the year 2021-2022 were called upon for verification, which were not available as the date fix of such returns for the financial year commencing 31-3-2021 were not due as on the said date. The purchase figures were not uploaded by the supplier(s) and annual returns would have been due on 30-9-2022 as per sections 44 and 45 of the Act read with rules 80 and 81 of the OGST/CGST Act and Rules. 5. Apart from the fact that responding to the said summons, the petitioner had attempted to appear through his counsel with an objection against issuance of summons which was not duly honoured by opposite party No.1, it is asserted by the petitioner that though again an objection against the said summons was sent through registered post, yet another summons was issued under section 70 of the Act on 23-8-2022 directing the petitioner to appear and produce the required books of account fixing the date of appearance on 30-8-2022. The petitioner, admittedly, did not appear and again made an objection by registered post asserting that his initial preliminary objection was not given any heed to. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers 2024 TaxPub(GST) 922 (Ori-HC)

IN THE ORISSA HIGH COURT

S.K. SAHOO J.

Satyam Castings (P) Ltd. v. Dy. Director, DGGI

W.P. (C) No. 2530 of 2024 and W.P. (C) No. 24358 of 2022

5 April, 2024

Petitioners by: U.C. Behura, Advocate

Opposite Parties by: T.K. Satapathy, Sr. Standing Counsel (CGST), Sunil Mishra, Standing Counsel (CT and GST)

JUDGMENT

Chakradhari Sharan Singh, CJ.

Since both the writ applications are based on same set of facts and pleadings on record, they have been heard together and they are being disposed of by the present common order and judgment.

2. We have heard Mr. U.C. Behura, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. T.K. Satapathy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Opposite Party-Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) and Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the CT and GST.

3. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 ( in short, GST Act) and is a private limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act. It is also registered as a medium scale industry for manufacture of caste iron products.

4. On 30-3-2022, the Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax, Zonal Unit, Bhubaneswar (opposite party No.1) along with an investigation team had visited the petitioners place of business and seized certain records and books of accounts available there, under section 67 of the GST Act on the reasoning that those documents were relevant to the proceedings under the GST Act. It is the petitioners case that opposite party No.1 had conducted the investigation and seized the records and accounts for the financial years 2017 to 2021-2022 and then issued summons under section 70 of the CGST Act, fixing the date of personal appearance on 01-4-2022. It is also the petitioners case that the accounts for the year 2021-2022 were called upon for verification, which were not available as the date fix of such returns for the financial year commencing 31-3-2021 were not due as on the said date. The purchase figures were not uploaded by the supplier(s) and annual returns would have been due on 30-9-2022 as per sections 44 and 45 of the Act read with rules 80 and 81 of the OGST/CGST Act and Rules.

5. Apart from the fact that responding to the said summons, the petitioner had attempted to appear through his counsel with an objection against issuance of summons which was not duly honoured by opposite party No.1, it is asserted by the petitioner that though again an objection against the said summons was sent through registered post, yet another summons was issued under section 70 of the Act on 23-8-2022 directing the petitioner to appear and produce the required books of account fixing the date of appearance on 30-8-2022. The petitioner, admittedly, did not appear and again made an objection by registered post asserting that his initial preliminary objection was not given any heed to.