Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
M.S.SAHOO, ARINDAM SINHA, ACJ.
Bipin Kumar Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner CGST and Central Excise, Rourkela – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ARINDAM SINHA, ACJ.
1. The writ petition was moved on 6th September, 2024 by Mr. Padhy, learned advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner. Mr. Sahoo, learned advocate, Junior Standing Counsel appears on behalf of Central revenue and Mr. Mishra, learned advocate, Standing Counsel, for State revenue.
2. On behalf of petitioner it was earlier submitted, impugned is order dated 26th April, 2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, GST and Central Excise. It is an order, subject matter of which was scrutiny. Section 61 in Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provides for scrutiny and the order was made for demand under section 74. The scrutiny and demand were for periods 2017-18 and 2018-19. For the periods, the State authorities had already conducted audit and final audit report dated 4th May, 2023 stands disclosed. The provision for audit is section 65. Referring to section 6(2)(b) it was submitted, impugned order be interfered with because there already has been a concluded proceeding in respect of subject matter of the proceeding initiated by Central revenue, resulting in impugned order.
3. We reproduce below paragraph 4 from our order dated 6th September, 2024.
“4. Defi
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'.
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.
Proceedings initiated by one authority under the CGST Act must be concluded by that authority; inquiries do not equate to the initiation of proceedings.
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.
The audit report's delay does not invalidate show cause notices under the CGST Act if they comply with statutory provisions, as the audit serves merely as additional material for initiating action.
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....
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.
Central authorities cannot initiate audits where State authorities have already made determinations on the same subject matter as established under Section 6(2)(b)
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
