The court ruled that the Circular and Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act do not prevent multiple jurisdictions from conducting unified investigations when necessary, reaffirming the court's discretion to centralize investigations.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. The above two writ petition(s), being W.P.(C) 2420 of 2021 and W.P.(C) 4036 of 2021, raise a common question of law and are premised on the Circular, bearing D.O. F. No. CBEC/20/43/01/2017-GST (Pt.), dated 05.10.2018, issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `CBEC'), and are therefore, being considered and disposed of by this common judgment.

W.P.(C) 2420/2021

2. In W.P.(C) 2420 of 2021, it is the case of the petitioner that it is engaged in the manufacturing and supply of tobacco products. It obtained GST Registration on 21.10.2019 from the jurisdictional Office situated at Gautam Buddh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, as the petitioner's firm was registered and had its principal place of business within the jurisdiction of the said Commissionerate.

3. The petitioner commenced its commercial operations in the month of December 2019.

4. On 19.03.2020, a search was carried out at the petitioner's premises by the CGST Officers from Gautam Buddh Nagar. The petitioner alleges that no shortcomings were noticed in the said search operation. Thereafter, a Show Cause Notice dated 20.04.2020 was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Tax Division-I, Gautam Buddh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why its refund claim, filed for the month of February 2020 under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the `CGST Act'), be not rejected and the alleged inadmissible credit amounting to Rs.18,26,78,282/- (Rupees eighteen crore twenty-six lakh seventy-eight thousand two hundred eighty-two) be not recovered from the petitioner.

5. The Assistant Commissioner, Gautam Buddh Nagar, further, vide its order dated 11.05.2020 passed under Section 83 of the CGST Act called upon the ICICI Bank, where the petitioner maintained its bank account, to supply the KYC documents along with the details of the banking transactions. It was further directed that the bank account of the petitioner shall remain provisionally attached and no debit shall be allowed to be made from the said account without prior permission of the Department.

6. Thereafter, summons dated 05.06.2020 under Section 70 of the CGST Act was issued to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to produce various documents.

7. The petitioner claims that as its refund was not released and the bank account of the petitioner remained attached in spite of various representations, the petitioner filed two writ petitions, being Civil Writ Petition No(s). 461 of 2020 and 462 of 2020, before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, wherein notice was issued in the petitions and pleadings therein were directed to be completed. However, during the pendency of the above petitions, another search was carried out a