Back
A. K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, EASWARAN S.
Pinnacle Vehicles And Services Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Joint Commissioner (Intelligence & Enforcement) – Respondent
JUDGMENT
A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
This Writ Petition has been posted before us by the Registry after getting orders from the Honourable the Chief Justice pursuant to a reference order dated 07.11.2024 of a learned Single Judge in the writ petition.
2. We have heard Smt.Ammu Charles, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Mohammed Rafeeq, the learned Special Government Pleader for the State and Sri.S.Sreejith and Sri. J. Vishnu, the learned counsel for the Union of India. We have also gone through the pleadings in the case, the judgments cited across the bar and the reference order of the learned Single Judge.
3. The petitioner is essentially aggrieved by Exts.P2 and P4 authorisation and show cause notice, respectively, served on it in connection with proceedings initiated against under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act [hereinafter referred to as the “CGST Actâ€]. In the writ petition, the main challenge was essentially with regard to the jurisdiction of the Officers of the State GST Department to issue the aforesaid authorisation and show cause notice to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that under Sect
Cross-empowerment of State GST officers under the CGST Act requires a government notification; without it, their actions are invalid.
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.
Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act and the Circular dated 05.10.2018 have limited application and are not a bar to multiple search operations and summons issued by multiple agencies in certain circumsta....
The court established that the authority that initiates tax enforcement proceedings retains jurisdiction to complete the investigation, reinforcing the principle of cross empowerment between Central ....
“there is difference between existence of jurisdiction and exercise of jurisdiction. The existence of jurisdiction is reflected by the fact of amenabilities of the jurisdiction to attack in the colla....
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 t....
Proceedings initiated by one authority under the CGST Act must be concluded by that authority; inquiries do not equate to the initiation of proceedings.
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
