Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Raja Basu Chowdhury
Amit Agarwal – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.
1. The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the order in original dated 28th January, 2025 passed by the respondent no.1 under the provisions of WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), for the tax period 2017-18 to 2018-19.
2. The petitioner claims to be an individual who was a registered tax payer under the provisions of the said Act and continued to be so until 4th February, 2023.
3. It is the petitioner’s case that during the period the petitioner was registered under the provisions of the said Act, a proceeding was initiated under Section 61 of the said Act, which ultimately came to be dropped on the basis of the response filed by the petitioner, vide an order dated 9th March, 2023.
4. Subsequently, on 5th August, 2024 the petitioner claims to be shocked to have received the show cause issued under Section 74 of the said Act in respect of the tax period 2017-18 to 2018 -19.
5. Mr. Shraff, learned advocate appearing in support of the writ petition would strenuously contend that once a proceeding had been initiated by the respondents and the same had been dropped, no further proceedings could have bee
The court determined that prior dismissal of proceedings under Section 61 does not prevent initiation of actions under Section 74 when fraud is alleged, affirming legislative intent regarding fraud i....
Show-cause notices under Sections 73 and 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act can coexist for the same tax period if based on distinct grounds, and petitioners must pursue available appellate remedies before see....
Proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act cannot be initiated without evidence of fraud or misstatement if prior proceedings under Section 73 have been concluded.
Proceedings initiated by one authority under the CGST Act must be concluded by that authority; inquiries do not equate to the initiation of proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the proper officer must consider the explanation offered by the registered person before assuming jurisdiction to issue show cause notice unde....
Taxpayer cannot face dual proceedings by Central and State authorities on the same subject-matter under Section 6(2)(b) of the GST Act, establishing a safeguard against double taxation.
The jurisdiction under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act prohibits State GST authorities from initiating parallel proceedings once Central GST proceedings have commenced on the same subject matt....
Dual proceedings concerning the same subject matter initiated by State GST authorities after Central GST proceedings are barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory and imperative nature of the show cause notice requirement under Section 74(1) of the JGST Act and the need for specific charges in t....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
