Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
HARISH TANDON, CJ, MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Tansam Engineering and Construction Company – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Rourkela – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition jurisdictional issue and initial facts. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. hearing procedures for the subject matter. (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments concerning legality of dual proceedings. (Para 4) |
| 4. state and central authority roles and jurisdiction. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. judicial review of jurisdiction over gst. (Para 7) |
| 6. detailed analysis of judicial standings and precedents. (Para 8) |
| 7. verdict and rationale for the outcome. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Craving to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the instant writ application has been filed questioning propriety, legality and tenability of Order-in- Original dated 30.01.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Rourkela-I Division having jurisdiction of Rourkela-II Circle, Sundargarh exercising power under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Annexure-1) raising demands vide Summary of Order dated 31.01.2025 in Form GST DRC-07 pertaining to tax period from December, 2017 to March, 2018 (Annexure- 2) and Summary of Order dated 31.01.2025 relating to tax period August, 2018 (Annexure-3).
2. Relevant
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 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.
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 ....
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 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....
Cross-empowerment of State GST officers under the CGST Act requires a government notification; without it, their actions are invalid.
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
