Point of Law: As the delegation of powers by the Commissioner to the other authority or the officer as contemplated in Section 167 of the CGST Act. The Court, therefore, does not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Rastogi that the respondent No.3 was not the ‘proper officer’ as per the definition contained in Section 2(91) of the CGST Act, and therefore, had no powers to issue summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act.

JUDGMENT :

Bela M. Trivedi, J.

1. The petitioners by the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have challenged the Summons dated 12.4.2021 (Annexure-A) issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2007 (herein after referred to as 'CGST Act"), calling upon the petitioners to give evidence and produce the documents as mentioned therein in connection with the inquiry initiated against the petitioners. The petitioners also have sought directions against the respondent No.3 to issue refund/allow recredit of INR 3 Crore paid by the petitioners on 9.2.2021 vide Form No.GST DCR-03 (Annexure-F). The petitioners have also sought direction to quash and set aside the impugned Circular dated 5.7.2017 (Annexure-B), in connection with the assignment of functions to the officers as the 'proper officers' in relation to the various functions of the CGST Act and the Rules made thereunder.

2. The petitioner No.1 is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting specialized chemicals having its factory set up at GIDC Plot Nos.2514, 2515, 2505/A Phase-IV, Vapi and the petitioner No.2 is the Factory Manager of the petitioner No.1. The petitioner Company is the holder of Advance Authorization Licences granted in terms of the Scheme set out in Chapter-IV (AA Scheme) of Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020. It appears that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Kolkata Zonal Unit vide the Communication dated 11.11.2020 addressed to the Mumbai Office of the petitioner No.1, had intimated that an inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and other importers, who had incorrectly availed the benefits of EOU Scheme extra in terms of the Customs Notification Nos.78/2017-Cus, 79/2017-Cus, and 48/2017-Cus respectively, and also simultaneously availed the benefit of refund of duty paid on the goods exported towards fulfillment of the export obligation. Being aggrieved by the said communication the petitioner had preferred a writ petition bearing No.WP(L) No.8839 of 2020 before the Bombay High Court in which the Bombay High Court, vide the order dated 8.1.2021 issued the notice to the concerned respondents.

3. As per the further case of the petitioners, the manufacturing unit of the petitioners at Vapi was visited by the officers of the respondent No.3 on 9.2.2021 in connection with the said inquiry and during the said visit, a sum of Rs.3 crore was recovered from the petitioners on the alleged incorrect IGST refunds. The copy of the Form DRC-03 in respect of the payment of INR 3 crore has been produced at Annexure-F. According to the petitioners, the said payment was made by the petitioners under extreme duress and not on their own volition and the same was reflected in the column of 'reasons', where it was stated that the said amount was paid under protest towards an inquiry in connection with an incorrect claim of double benefits. It is further case of the petitioners that subsequent to the said visit the respondent No.3 issued the impugned summons invoking Section 70 of the CGST Act, calling upon the petitioners to remain present on 21.4.2021 to give evidence and/or to produce documents namely tender statement, copy of advance authorization under which refund of IGST was claimed and on which raw material was imported duty free and quantification of refund claimed till date on advance authorization under which refund of IGST has been claimed and on which raw material was imported duty free. According to the petitioners, they are facing two parallel investigating proceedings namely the proceedings initiated pursuant to the communication dated 11.11.2020 by the DRI, Kolkata Zonal Unit and the proceedings instituted by the respondent No.3 vide the impugned summons, invoking Section 70 of the CGST Act and hence, the petition has been filed.

4. The learned Advocate Mr. Abhishek Rastogi appearing with the learned Advocate Mr. Bhavesh Chokshi for the petitioners, at the outset, challen