Back
PANKAJ BHANDARI, SHUBHA MEHTA
Rais Khan Proprietor of M/s. Kota Metals – Appellant
Versus
Add. Commissioner, Enforcement Wing-II Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Petitioner has preferred this Civil Writ Petition challenging the issuance of summons dated 27.09.2023 & 14.02.2024 under Section 70 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “CGST Act”) passed by Superintendent/ Appraiser/Senior Intelligence Officer DGGI and praying for quashing and setting aside of the same.
2. It is contended by counsel appearing for the petitioner that State Authorities had initiated the proceedings and as per Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, if a proper Officer under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act has initiated any proceedings on a subject matter, no proceedings shall be initiated by the proper Officer under this Act on the same subject matter. It is also contended that since the State Authorities had initiated action, summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act, could not have been issued by the DGGI. It is further contended that proper Officer has been defined under Section 2(91) of the CGST Act.
3. It is contended that Guidelines have been issued by the GST-Investigation Wing on issuance of summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act, which are binding on the Authoriti
Issuance of summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act is not barred by prior proceedings under Section 6(2)(b) of the same Act.
Proceedings initiated by one authority under the CGST Act must be concluded by that authority; inquiries do not equate to the initiation of proceedings.
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 submissi....
The initiation of proceedings under one GST Act precludes subsequent actions under another for the same subject matter, emphasizing distinct meanings of 'proceedings' and 'inquiry'.
Jurisdiction prohibits State authorities from initiating proceedings when Central GST has already initiated consistent inquiries on the same subject matter under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.
The court upheld the vires of Section 70 of the RGST Act, emphasizing that the powers are not unguided or uncanalised and are to be exercised in a manner provided in the Act.
Inquiry under GST provisions must be limited and cannot indefinitely compel individuals to appear in absence of further need following compliance and evidence gathering.
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.
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
