MEENA ADVERTISERS REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR V KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF GOODS & SERVICE TAX INTELLIGENCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.R.Anishkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.V.Sundareswara, learned Senior Standing Counsel, for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.S.R.Sundar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents 3 and 4.

(2.) The petitioner is a proprietor of an Advertising Firm under the name and style of "M/s.Meena Advertisers". In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the summons dated 001.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent and to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to transfer the files pertaining to the petitioner's case to the Jurisdictional Authorities/ Officers, viz., the respondents 3 and 4 for further proceedings.

(3.) The petitioner's case is largely based upon a circular issued by the Central Board on 29.07.2017 in Circular No.1056/05/2017-C.X. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to para 2 of the Circular, submitted that as far as show cause notice issued to the assessees having Centralised registration is concerned, the jurisdictional authority in the re-organised CGST/Central Excise Commissionerate exercising control over the business location, which had taken Centralised Registration (in the previous regime), may take up the adjudication of the legacy notice irrespective of the fact that show cause notice issued to a particular location or to multiple locations covered under such Centralised registrations after his appointment as common adjudicating authority. By referring to the said condition in the circular, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation should be shifted to Chennai.