Dismissed

M/s. Sai Institutions v. Senior Interlligence Officer

Madras HC25 Apr 2018WP/9237/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dispos of a writ petition seeking quashing of a summons to obtain GST registration. The High Court held the impugned proceeding was merely a direction to appear and was not amenable to quashing, directing the petitioner to approach the Range Officer.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to appear before Range Officer; writ disposed of; connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition closed.

M/s. Sai Institutions Vs Senior Interlligence Officer — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 25.04.2018 Coram The Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.S.Sivagnanam

¶2

Writ Petition No.9237 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.11049 of 2018

¶3

M/s. Sai Industries, rep. by Proprietor Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar ...Petitioner

¶4

Vs.

¶5

Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, Chennai Zonal Unit, C-3, C-Wing, II Floor, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 090. ...Respondent

¶6

Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records in proceedings, in F.No.INV/DGGSTI/CZU/ST/30/2018, dated 22.02.2018, on the file of the respondent herein and to quash the same and to direct the respondent to return the records maintained in the annexure to the Mahazar, dated 01.02.2018, to the petitioner Institution.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sadasharam For Respondent : Mr.V.Sundareswaran Senior Standing Counsel

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

Heard Mr.S.Sadasharam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.Sundareswaran, the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶10

The petitioner has questioned the communication, dated 22.08.2018, which appears to be in the nature of summons, directing the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Range Officer, and obtain registration under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994.

¶11

The petitioner would state that, already they obtained registration. However, it is pointed out by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent that the registration was

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

obtained only under the General Sales Tax Act. In the written instructions received by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent, dated 16.04.2018, it is stated that, the Zonal Unit had registered an offence case against the petitioner Institutions vide IR. No.58 of 2018, dated 20.03.2018, and brief note on the facts relating to the offence case is also submitted before this Court. In any event, the impugned proceeding is only a direction given to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Range Officer, which is in the nature of summons or direction, it cannot be quashed. If, for any reason, the petitioner is of the opinion that, they need not obtain registration under the Finance Act, it is for them to explain the same to the Range Officer. Therefore, on the grounds raised by the petitioner, the impugned proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶14

For the above reason, the Writ Petition is disposed of, by directing the petitioner to appear before the Range Officer, and take whatever stand, which is permissible in law. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sd To Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, Chennai Zonal Unit, C-3, C-Wing, II Floor, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 090. +1cc to Mr.S.SADASHARAM, Advocate, S.R.No.30638 Writ Petition No.9237 of 2018 NA(CO) TR(16/05/2018)

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/s. Sai Institutions v. Senior Interlligence Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Sai Institutions v. Senior Interlligence Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Vikram Trading Company Vs The Deputy Commissioner of

The Superintending Engineer Vs The Director General of

M/s.Velmurugan Traders Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Syed Anvarullah Hussiny Vs Mr. Palanikumar

Sri Ramakrishna Yarn Carriers Vs Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jain

Dr.B.Mahender, Vs The Commissioner