1. The petitions have been heard by way of video conferencing.

2. Learned ASG has explained in detail the constitutional architecture of CGST Act, 2017, IGST Act 2017, SGST and UGST Acts as well as width, ambit and application of Section 6 of CGST and SGST Acts, appointment of Central Tax and State Tax officers. He further states that in the case of M/s M/s Indo International Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. being, WP(C) 2420/2021, the petitioner firm appears to be involved in availment and utilization of fake ITC of more than ₹ 100 crores, supply of low-grade tobacco products in the garb of “smoking mixture for pipes and cigarettes”, and overvaluation of its products to pass on huge fake ITC to certain entities, located all across Delhi NCR region, which are inter-connected and it is not possible for the jurisdictional CGST Commissionerate to carry out a thorough investigation due to its limited territorial jurisdiction. He has referred to thirteen investigations being carried out by different authorities as mentioned in the additional affidavit filed on behalf of respondents No. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9. In particular, he has referred to the following investigations being carried out by DGGI, Ahmedabad Zonal Unit:-

3. Mr. Satish Kumar, learned counsel for Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence in writ petition being SSM Exports vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax and CGST Delhi West & Ors., WP(C) 4036/2021 states that domestic tariff area suppliers have shown supply of low valued tobacco and tobacco related products to certain SEZ units in Kandla, Special Economic Zone, at highly over-valued rates so as to avail ineligible refund of Input Tax Credit sourced fraudulently from many non-existent entities. The relevant portion of the counter affidavit, relied upon by him, is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“5.1 It is most respectfully submitted that specific intelligence was received by Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Ahmedabad Zonal Unit (hereinafter referred as ‘DGGI, AZU’ for sake of brevity) that certain entities based in Delhi NCR region of Domestic Tariff Area (hereinafter referred as ‘DTA’ for sake of brevity), had shown supply of low value tobacco and tobacco related products to certain SEZ units in Kandla Special Economic Zone (hereinafter referred to as ‘KASEZ’) at highly over valued rates so as to avail ineligible refund of Input Tax Credit (ITC) sourced fraudulently from many non-existent entities.

5.2 On the basis of the said information searches were carried out initially at the premises of M/ s Palmon Export (GSTIN- 24AAHFP4369G2Z3), M/ s Sugandha Exports (GSTIN- 24AJEPB3156B2ZZ) and M/s Shivam Betelnuts Pvt Ltd. (GSTIN- 24AAUCS0489A1Z9) on 18/ 19.09.2019, 24/25.09.2019 and 21.09.2019 respectively, all located in KASEZ and at the premises of certain Domestic Tariff Area suppliers. To verify the contents of intelligence, searches were also conducted at the premises of certain entities from whom these DTA suppliers had claimed to have purchased the goods. The action by the respondents taken initially is pictorially depicted as under:

5.3 M/s SSM Exports, the petitioner firm, is one of such entities, depicted as ‘A’ having GSTIN 07 AERPG2791R2ZK, from whom certain DTA suppliers namely M/s. SH Exports (07AQIPG3048E1Z4), M/s. J J Dyeing Private Limited (09AADCJ8927H1Z6), M/s. Kumar Sales (09AYEPS1722R1ZS), M/s. Premier Solutions (07 AJMPB6556D3Z8) and M/s. Shriniwas Exports (07 AWBPK3048B2Z0) etc. have purchased, either directly or through intermediaries, the suspected low value tobacco and tobacco related products falling under HSN 2403. These DTA suppliers have further shown supply of tobacco and tobacco products to the SEZ units. The details of GST /ITC involved in the outward supplies shown to the aforesaid DTA suppliers by the Petitioner directly are as below:

Table : 1

The DTA suppliers in turn, have claimed ITC of said amount and have claimed/ attempted to claim refund of such ITC against supplies made to KASEZ.

4. Mr. Harpreet Singh, learned counsel for Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax and CGST Delhi West, states that enquiry initiated by his client against M/s Pawanputra Exim, in which the petitioner’s premises were also searched, has been forwarded to DGGI, Ahmedabad. In fact, a categorical averment has been made in the said counter affidavit that CGST Delhi West Commissionerate is no longer conducting any investigation against the petitioner. The relevant portion of the said affidavit is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“8. That it is most respectfully submitted, since the answering respondent conducted enquiry against M/s Pawanputra Exim who received goods less invoices from the petitioner firm and DGGI, Ahmedabad was already conducting investigation against the petitioner who supplied bogus Bills not only to M/s Pawanputra Exim India but also to various other suppliers falling outside the jurisdiction of CGST Delhi West Commissionerate. Therefore, enquiry against M/s Pawanputra Exim India was forwarded to DGGI Ahmedabad to avoid duplicacy of work vide office letter F.No. DW/GST/AE/PE/Delta/Pawan/621/2019-20/21487 dated 13.08.2020. A copy of the said letter dated 13.8.2020 is annexed here as Annexure R/1.

9. That, the office of the deponent is no longer conducting any investigation against the petitioner.”

5. Today, Mrs. Anjali J. Manish, learned counsel states that she be allowed to first argue on facts in W.P.(C) 5816/2021 & W.P.(C) 4036/2021. It is pertinent to mention that Mr. Ganesh, learned senior counsel in his opening arguments in W.P.(C) 2420/2021 had argued a pure question of law, namely, whether Ahmedabad Unit of GST Intelligence can claim to be the proper officer notwithstanding the Circular dated 5th October, 2018 and claim the right to carry out investigation in respect of the petitioners even when the enforcement action had already been initiated by the State GST authorities at Gautam Budh Nagar. Mr. Ganesh, learned senior counsel clarifies that he is not appearing in W.P.(C) 4036/2021 and W.P.(C) 5816/2021. He reiterates that he in his rejoinder argument will stick to his question of law that he argued in his opening arguments.

6. Right from the day the final hearing commenced all the aforesaid matters were taken up for hearing together. This Court did not advice any counsel to argue in a particular manner or not to argue at all. It is only when the petitioner concluded their arguments that this Court called upon learned counsel for respondents to argue. Today to state that learned counsel for respondents should confine their arguments to the issue of law or the petitioner should be allowed to argue first in W.P.(C) 5816/2021 and 4036/2021 would amount to ‘derailing’ the hearing. Moreover, question of law cannot be decided in a vacuum. The facts put forward by the respondents would help the Court in determining the question of law correctly.

7. However, as today learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) 4036/2021 and W.P.(C) 5816/2021 states that she would like to argue on facts at some length, list the matter on 22nd November, 2021 for arguments on behalf of the petitioners.

8. Since, in the interim, investigation by DGGI Ahmedabad has been stayed and in effect no investigation is taking place, this Court, to balance the equities, directs that till further orders, no refunds shall be released to the petitioners.

9. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.