This court do not find any substance in the present application, calling for interference in either the complaint case or the order of cognizance or the order of the summoning, therefore, the application fails and is dismissed.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Complaint —–The applicant sought quashing/setting aside of the order dated 27.04.2021 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut whereby Magistrate has taken cognizance of Complaint Case under Sections 132 and has summoned the applicant. The applicant sought quashing on ground that said sanction order has not been issued by a competent authority. The allegations on the present applicant according to the revenue are that the applicant has illegally claimed and taken benefit of input tax credit. The respondent counsel submitted that Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, CBEC vide Notification No. 14/2007- Central Tax, New Delhi, 1st July, 2017 has declared Additional Director General, GST Intelligence to be equivalent to Commissioner and have been authorized to exercise powers of the Commissioner, therefore, sanction has not been granted by the competent authority, has no basis. The court relying on the ratio of the law laid down in case of Radheshyam Kejriwal and Mr. Tejas Pravin Dugad that adjudication and prosecution can be started simultaneously under fiscal statutes observed that Additional Director General has been vested with the powers of the Commissioner.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the application.
This court do not find any substance in the present application, calling for interference in either the complaint case or the order of cognizance or the order of the summoning, therefore, the application fails and is dismissed.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Complaint —–The applicant sought quashing/setting aside of the order dated 27.04.2021 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut whereby Magistrate has taken cognizance of Complaint Case under Sections 132 and has summoned the applicant. The applicant sought quashing on ground that said sanction order has not been issued by a competent authority. The allegations on the present applicant according to the revenue are that the applicant has illegally claimed and taken benefit of input tax credit. The respondent counsel submitted that Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, CBEC vide Notification No. 14/2007- Central Tax, New Delhi, 1st July, 2017 has declared Additional Director General, GST Intelligence to be equivalent to Commissioner and have been authorized to exercise powers of the Commissioner, therefore, sanction has not been granted by the competent authority, has no basis. The court relying on the ratio of the law laid down in case of Radheshyam Kejriwal and Mr. Tejas Pravin Dugad that adjudication and prosecution can be started simultaneously under fiscal statutes observed that Additional Director General has been vested with the powers of the Commissioner.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the application.