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'.

JUDGMENT :

ARINDAM SINHA, ACJ.

1. The writ petition was moved on 6^th 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 26^th 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 4^th 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 6^th September, 2024.

“4. Definitions section 2 does not define proceeding. Opposite parties have adjournment to make out their case on opposing the writ petition.”

4. There does not appear to be dispute on facts. Central revenue had issued summons, after which State revenue had issued notice and got conducted audit. Report was filed. Section 65 in Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provides for audit. Sub- section (7) therein permits the proper officer to initiate action, inter alia, under section 74. Provisions in the Act correspond to provisions in Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. On the audit concluded, petitioner accepted relevant paragraphs in the report, to meet the short payment of tax.

5. Mr. Padhy submits, the summons was issued prior to notice issued by State revenue. However, the show cause notice was issued after the audit report filed and his client having accepted it to pay the difference pointed out. In the circumstances, there stood a proceeding concluded before the show cause notice was issued by Central revenue. He relies on view taken on judgment dated 2^nd December, 2020 by a Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ (Tax) Petition no.666 of 2020 in G.K. Trading Company v. Union of India and others. He places paragraph 10 (Manupatra print), reproduced below.

“10. The words “subject-matter”, “proceedings” and “inquiry” have not been defined either under the State G.S.T. Act or the Union Territory G.S.T. Act or the C.G.S.T. Act. Therefore, these words have to be interpreted in the context of the aforesaid Acts. The word “inquiry” in Section 70 has a special connotation and a specific purpose to summon any person whose attendance may be considered necessary by the proper officer either to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing. It cannot be intermixed with some statutory steps which may precede or may ensue upon the making of the inquiry or conclusion of inquiry. The process of inquiry under-Section 70 is specific and unified by the very purpose for which provisions of Chapter XIV of the Act confers power upon the proper officer to hold inquiry. The word “inquiry” in Section 70 is not synonymous with the word “proceedings”, in Section 6(2)(b) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act/C.GS.T. Act.”

Mr. Padhy also relies on paragraphs 17 and 18, reproduced below.

“17. Thus, Section 6(2)(b) of the C.GS.T. Act prohibits separate initiation of proceedings on the same subject-matter by the proper officer under the C.GS.T. Act when proceeding on the same subject- matter by the proper officer under the State Act has been initiated, whereas Section 70 of the U.P.GS.T./C.GS.T. Act merely empowers the proper officer to summon any person in any inquiry. The word "proceedings" used in Section 6(2)(b) is qualified by the words "subject-matter" w