Page 104 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

6 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
petitioner pays CGST/SGST/IGST on the goods purchased from the manufac-
turers and further pays CGST/SGST/IGST on the value of the supply of said
goods made at the time of sale being made by the petitioner to other customers.
5. According to the Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, therefore,
was entitled for the input tax credit on the GST paid on the goods and services
purchased. According to the Counsel for the petitioner, the respondents initially
commenced an investigation against the petitioner on the allegation of the peti-
tioner allegedly purchasing goods from bogus dealers and thereby issuing fake
invoices and a notice in this regard was issued to the petitioner, based upon
which subsequently the input tax credit available to the petitioner was blocked
and thereafter a proceeding was drawn in respect of the illegal availing of the
input tax credit. The said notice was subjected to challenge in WPT No. 130 of
2019. This court disposed of the said writ petition directing the petitioner to file a
detailed representation/objection to the concerned authorities under the de-
partment, who in turn was further directed to take into consideration the con-
tents of the representation/objection and decide the same. According to the
Counsel for the petitioner, the respondent officers have already issued a show
cause notice on 25-10-2019 proposing cancellation of registration of the petitioner
for the reasons of dealing in fake invoices. Subsequently, on 15-11-2019 the re-
spondents had cancelled the registration of the petitioner.
6. Subsequently, the respondents again issued a show cause notice on
12-12-2019 proposing to cancel registration of the petitioner on the same allega-
tions of issuance of fake invoices to which also even before the petitioner could
response to the proceedings commenced, the respondents had vide order, dated
28-8-2019 cancelled the registration of the petitioner.
7. The petitioner again applied for restoration of registration vide ap-
plication, dated 31-12-2019, which is still pending consideration before the con-
cerned authorities. Meanwhile, the respondents issued a show cause notice dated
2-1-2020 proposing a tax demand of Rs. 11 crores for allegedly dealing with fake
dealers and using of fake invoices. Since it was only a summary show cause no-
tice, the petitioner immediately filed a representation on 3-1-2020 before the con-
cerned officer requesting to provide the details of the show cause notice enabling
the petitioner to effectively participate in the proceedings before taking any deci-
sion on the application filed by the petitioner. The respondents conducted a raid
on the premises of the petitioner including the house of few employees of the
petitioner’s establishment on 31-1-2020. Subsequently, one of the directors Mr.
Dadhichi has been arrested by the respondents in connection with the aforesaid
investigation proceedings on 4-2-2020 by the DGCGST. It is this which has led to
the filing of the present writ petition challenging it on the ground of it being ille-
gal as there is an express bar under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGSTAct, 2017.
8. The primary contention of the Counsel for the petitioner was that
once when a show cause notice proceeding initiated by the respondents, dated
14-11-2019 is pending before the concerned authorities under the CGST, the re-
spondents could not have issued or initiated another investigation or proceeding
in respect of the same subject matter, which otherwise is not permissible under
the provisions of Section 6(2)(b). Referring to the aforesaid provision of law, the
petitioner submitted that the whole investigation proceeding initiated by the re-
spondents including that of the arrest that has been made is without and beyond
jurisdiction.
9. According to the counsel for the petitioner, once the matter ceased by

GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  168