1. In Special Civil Application No.15201 of 2021, preferred by the original petitioner, the company incorporated in the year 2012 and engaged in the business of copper products, had passed the order dated 23/11/2021, where the prayers sought by the petitioner company were as follows:

“(A) To issue a writ of mandamus and/or writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing to quash and set Provisional Attachment Orders at Annexure-A, Annexure-B, Annexure-C, Annexure-D and Annexure-E passed by the respondent no.2 with consequential and incidental relief in favours of the petitioners on such terms and conditions as may be deemed fit and proper to this Hon’ble Court.

(B) To issue a writ of mandamus and/or writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing to quash and set aside communication / an order dated 27/07/2021 at Annexure-F passed by the respondent no.2 and declare that petitioner no.1 is entitled to receive its debts from the debtors (buyers) of the petitioner No.1 along with other consequential and incidental reliefs on such terms and conditions as may be deemed fit and proper to this Hon’ble Court.

(C) To issue a writ of mandamus and/or writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set an order passed by the respondent no.2 blocking Input Tax Credit of Rs. 3,10,07,409/- of the petitioner no.1 company by communication dated 09/07/2021 at Annexure-G on such terms and conditions as may be deemed fit and proper to this Hon’ble Court.

(D) To issue a writ of mandamus and/or writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set an order of Prohibition passed in FORM GST INS-03 dated 10/07/2021 by the respondent no.2 prohibiting the petitioners from removing, part with or otherwise deal with the goods except with the previous permission at Annexure-H on such terms and conditions as may be deemed fit and proper to this Hon’ble Court.

(E) Pending admission, final hearing and disposal of this petition, to stay implementation and operations of Provisional Attachment Orders at Annexure-A, Annexure- B, Annexure-C, Annexure-D and Annexure-E passed by the respondent no.2 on such terms and conditions as may be deemed fit and proper to this Hon’ble Court.

(F) Pending admission, final hearing and disposal of this petition, to stay implementation and operations of the order/communication dated 27/07/2021 at Annexure-F and to direct the respondent nos.1 and 2 to communicate all 49 buyers (debtors) of the petitioner no.1 who are listed in communication dated 27/07/2021 at Annexure-F to make the payment against the Tax Invoice and goods received from the petitioner no.1 in the designated bank account declared before the GST authority on such terms and conditions as may be deemed fit and proper to this Hon’ble Court.

(G) Pending admission, final hearing and disposal of this petition, to stay implementation and operation of an order of Prohibition passed in FORM GST INS by the respondent no.2 at Annexure-H prohibiting the petitioners from removing, part with or otherwise deal with the goods except with the previous permission and permit the petitioner no.1 to dispatch the finished goods to the Buyers of the petitioner no.1 on such terms and conditions as may be deemed fit and proper to this Hon’ble Court.

(H) To pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of the petitioners.

(I) To provide for the CGSTs of this petition.”

2. After detailed hearing, the court chose not to enter into the merits of the matter and on noticing certain obligations to be fulfilled by the company, deemed it appropriate to direct thus:

“21. The Court chooses not to enter into the arena of the merit at this stage when the hearing has already been concluded, however, noticing that there are certain obligations to be fulfilled by the company, we deem it appropriate to direct as follows: –

(i) The respondent authority shall deliver the order of the hearing, concluded of the show cause notices, within 10 days of the receipt of the copy of this order.

(ii) The finished goods produced by the company which have been lying with the company can be permitted to be utilized for fulfilling the contractual obligations of the two countries namely Sri Lanka and United Kingdom.

(iii) Two of the contracts which are to be carried out of public sector are also to be permitted to be fulfilled out of the finished goods lying with the company which is of 53,128.24 kgs.

(iv) Once the company supplies the finished goods to the public sector entities as also to the foreign companies, the amount received shall be deposited in the current account in Bank of Baroda of the company so that the track of same can be recorded by the Revenue Authority.

(v) So far as the operating of the current account in Bank of Baroda, the credit of the ITC worth Rs. 3 Crores and unlocking of the same, no order is presently needed to be passed. The same is urged before the respondent already and the same shall be considered by the concerned authority at the time of adjudication. (vi) The company shall provide the details of every transaction physically as well as through e-mode to the Revenue Authority without fail. As ensured before this Court, all the transactions of the supply shall be monitored by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax Department, Bhavnagar.

(vii) With regard to any other directions sought by way of requests, the same shall be considered by the authority concerned who is directed to adjudicate the matter within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order.

(viii) As we have noted above that the process of investigation is continuing and as urged before us, it is about further six to eight weeks which will be required for the same to be completed, considering the magnitude of allegations, the period of eight weeks is granted for the investigation to be completed.

(ix) It is also being directed that the petitioner, who is before this Court seeking to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court shall need to essentially cooperate with the Investigating Officer and the Assessing Officer who is looking into this matter. Recording of his earlier statement or his cooperation at an earlier date will not in any manner relieve him of his obligations under the law, more particularly, being the directors of the company which has allegation of taking undue benefits of the provision of the law.

(x) The director of the petitioner company (petitioner no.2) will present himself before the Assistant Commissioner on 01.12.2021 at 11:00 a.m. in furtherance of the cooperation which is required by the officer in connection with this and thereafter, whenever necessary during the period of investigation. However, the officer concerned shall also attempt to complete the individual interrogation expeditiously.”

3. Disposal of the matter was not to prejudice the parties and investigation was directed to be completed within a period of eight weeks. Original petitioner was also directed to cooperate.

4. The State approached this Court with this application where it had alleged non cooperation on part of original petitioner-present opponent.

5. It is urged that he was not remaining present and was corresponding through letters. Enormous difficulties are ventilated by the State authorities in its inquiry which have resulted into preferring the present application.

6. The prayers sought for in the present application are as under:

“11. The applicants most respectfully prays as under:

A. YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to allow this application.

B. YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct the respondent (Orig. applicant) to co-operate with the order of this Hon’ble court and to appear before the investigation officer without any delay to co-operate for the investigation.

C. YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to remove the time limit for completion of the investigation.”

7. Affidavit-in-reply is filed by the opponent Mr.Nileshbhai Natubhai Patel who strongly objected to the averments set out in the application.

7.1. It is also pointed out to this Court that he had approached the Hon’ble Apex Court by preferring SLP (Criminal) No.9541 of 2022 for anticipatory bail and hence, his non appearance is not willful or deliberate. He had also volunteered to cooperate provided he was not arrested till his anticipatory bail was decided.

7.2. It is further his grievance that Investigating Officer filed four criminal complaints before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for the alleged offence punishable under Section 132 of GGST Act, 2017 and GGST Act, 2017.

7.3. It is therefore, urged that on none of these counts, the present application should be entertained.

8. Additional affidavit has been filed by the respondents nos.1 and 2 wherein it has been revealed that SLP (Criminal) Nos.9541 of 2022 and 9542 of 2022 for anticipatory bail has been disposed of. Respondent was initially protected and that protection had continued for ten days. He had moved before the City Sessions Court. However, when denied the bail and before he could be protected by this court, his arrest was made. He continues to be in judicial custody.

9. This Court heard Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned AGP for the State, learned Senior Standing Council Mr. Nikunt Raval, learned advocate for the Central Government and Mr.B. M. Mangukiya, learned advocate assisted by Mr.Chetan Pandya for the respondent-opponent.

10. At the outset, it has been urged before this Court by learned AGP that so far as prayer made in para-11.1 of the present application is concerned, she has not to press this since there is already cooperation received on the part of the respondent who has been arrested since his anticipatory bail was not entertained by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Later on the sessions court also not entertained his regular bail and therefore, that prayer is no longer sought.

11. Thus, the only prayer now left is of extending the time period for investigation which this Court has allowed of eight weeks. Even if eight weeks is considered from the date of his arrest i.e. on 23/02/2022, that period is over on 22/04/2021.

12. On seeking instructions from the officer who are present, learned AGP has urged this Court that officers are at the penultimate stage of investigation and they would require three months’ period to complete the same. According to her, on criminal side, the charge sheet is already filed before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and if need be so, the supplementary charge sheet shall be filed as and when further investigation is carried out. She agrees that this is not under Section 73 and 74 of GST Act that she claims to have completion of investigation. Learned Senior Standing Counsel of Central Government Mr.Nikunt Raval has urged that the present stage is of the post search and pre issuance of show cause notice, the authority would have powers as provided under Section 74 of GST Act where the time period would be of five years after the SCN is issued. Even if the first date of the alleged breach is taken into consideration being July, 2017 from contemporaneous record, according to him, the period of five years would be still available to the authority. Therefore, the period of three months which has been sought for by the State is not the time which is outside the statutory limit. Attention of this Court is further drawn to the fact that the reason why the Court had restricted the time period was because there are certain civil rights which were being jeopardized which will have been taken care of in the order passed in Coordinate Bench in Special Civil Application No.2776 on 04/05/2022.

13. This has been strongly resisted on part of the respondent firstly on the ground that period of eight weeks was needed to be scrupulously construed and the officers could not have travelled beyond that period. The allegations made of the respondent not having cooperated are also an eye wash. Moreover, interpretation of Section 74(10) is also been seriously questioned.

13.1. According to respondents/opponents, they are not concerned with the charge sheet filed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in criminal matter against the Director as these are the writ proceedings which are affecting the company and all those who are connected with the same Director’s default would not take toll of the company. It is urged therefore that a period of 12 weeks which has been sought for by the State must not be acceded to.

14. Having heard both the sides and also having considered the directions issued by this Court, we noticed that this was in the back drop that the hearing in relation to the provisional attachment had already been completed on 27/08/2021 in wake of pending investigation, the order was not being passed and this Court had needed to issue the directions which has been mentioned herein above.

15. As not disputed, the personal presence of opponent was not procured because of his moving to the Apex Court for anticipatory bail and his having been protected for a particular period. Thereafter till his date of arrest, though it was feasible for the officers to get his presence secured, as the State has today not pressed the prayer made in para-11.1, this Court is not desirous to go into this aspect any further.

15.1. Limited question is about grant of time of a particular period which is required by the State for completing investigation which was originally allowed for eight weeks.

16. Without interpreting the provision of Section 74(10) of the GST Act and without even entering into the merit of the breach which has been allegedly committed from July, 2017 and which according to the State has continued till 2021, the period of adjudication even if is construed to be of five years, it is rightly pointed out to this Court by learned Senior Standing Counsel that presently this period is of post search and pre issuance of show cause notice and therefore, presently this interpretation may not be necessary. It was not an attempt on part of the Court to curtail statutory time period required for inquiry/investigation, however, as civil rights were seriously jeopardized, the Court needed to restrict the time period. Now, no longer that grievance continuous in wake of order of the Coordinate Bench dated 04/05/2022. Moreover, as fairly admitted, this is a pre SCN stage in post search period and hence, unlimited period also would not be warranted.

17. The State has volunteered that this inquiry/investigation should be over in three months’ period but to be on safer side, we would grant four months’ period to the State to complete the present exercise, so that it may not have to once again approach fro extension.

18. With the aforesaid observations, present application stands disposed of.