Siemens Healthcare Pvt Ltd Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court)
Summary: The Delhi High Court considered a writ petition filed by M/s Siemens Healthcare Pvt Ltd challenging the transfer of its Goods and Services Tax (GST) audit file from the Audit Wing to the Anti-Evasion Wing. The petitioner’s case was that the Additional Commissioner (Audit Wing) had no power to transfer the file to the Anti-Evasion Wing.
The petitioner relied upon Section 65 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, submitting that an audit was required to be completed within three months from the date of commencement of the audit, with a possible further extension of six months where the Commissioner was satisfied and the statutory requirements were met. According to the petitioner, the audit in the present case had been completed after nearly two years.
The respondents opposed the challenge. Their submission was that the Additional Commissioner (Audit) and the Additional Commissioner (Anti-Evasion Wing) were functioning under the same Commissionerate. It was further submitted that the petitioner had not been cooperating with the Audit Wing and had not furnished the documents sought by it. Consequently, the matter was transferred to the Anti-Evasion Wing.
The Court held that the transfer of the file from one wing to another was essentially an administrative exercise. It found that, in the absence of any statutory prohibition under the CGST Act against such transfer, the transfer by itself could not constitute a ground for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
The Court also took note of the fact that, while transferring the file, the Additional Commissioner (Audit) had recorded that despite repeated notices, the taxpayer had submitted only a few documents by e-mail and had not furnished the financial documents pertaining to the Delhi branch of the petitioner.
In view of these circumstances, the Court declined to interfere in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. At the same time, the Court expressly left it open to the petitioner to raise all objections available to it in law before the Adjudicating Authority, including objections concerning the period within which the audit was required to be completed.
Accordingly, the writ petition and the pending application were disposed of. The order therefore did not finally adjudicate the petitioner’s objection concerning the statutory period for completion of the audit; that issue was left open for consideration before the Adjudicating Authority.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. Through the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner assails the correctness of the transfer of its Goods and Services Tax (GST) audit file from the Audit Wing to the Anti-Evasion Wing.
2. Learned counsel representing the Petitioner submits that the Additional Commissioner (Audit Wing) has no power to transfer the file to the Anti-Evasion Wing. He submits that, under Section 65 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CGST Act’), the audit is required to be completed within a period of three (03) months from the date of commencement of the audit, which may be extended by a further period of six (06) months if the Commissioner is satisfied. He submits that, in the present case, the audit has been completed after a period of nearly two (02) years.
3. Per contra, learned counsel representing the Respondents submit that the Additional Commissioner (Audit) and the Additional Commissioner(Anti-Evasion Wing) were functioning under the same Commissionerate. He submits that the Petitioner was not cooperating with the Audit Wing and was not furnishing the documents sought by it. Consequently, the matter was transferred to the Anti-Evasion Wing.
4. The transfer of the file from one wing to another is, essentially, an administrative exercise. In the absence of any statutory prohibition under the CGST Act against such transfer, the same cannot, by itself, be a ground for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
5. Moreover, while transferring the file, it has been noticed by the Additional Commissioner (Audit) that despite repeated notices, the taxpayer had only submitted a few documents via e-mail and had not furnished the financial documents pertaining to the Delhi branch of the Petitioner.
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid position, this Court does not find it appropriate to interfere in the exercise of Writ Jurisdiction.
7. It shall, however, be open to the Petitioner to raise all objections available to it in law before the Adjudicating Authority, including those relating to the period within which the audit was required to be completed.
8. With the aforesaid observations, the present Writ Petition, along with the pending application, stands disposed of.
