Point of Law: Section 6(2)(b) prohibits initiation of proceedings by the proper officer under U.P.G.S.T. Act on the same subject-matter where a proper officer under the C.G.S.T. Act has initiated any proceedings on the same subject-matter subject to the conditions specified in the notification issued under sub-section (1). Section 6(2)(b) of C.G.S.T. Act imposes similar prohibition upon the proper officer under the C.G.S.T. Act. Thus, Section 6(2)(b) of the C.G.S.T. Act/U.P.G.S.T. Act prohibits initiation of any proceedings on the same subject-matter by a proper officer under the C.G.S.T. Act/by a proper officer under the State G.S.T. Act, as the case may be, on the same subject-matter.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. C.B. Tripathi, learned special counsel for the Union of India.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief:-

(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 3 and 4 not to proceed with any inquiry against the petitioner and to talk any coercive steps against the petitioner, in pursuance of the impugned summoned.

(ii) To issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iii) To award costs of the petition to the petitioner.

Submissions:

3. Sri. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits as under:-

(i) The respondent no. 5 has inspected the business premises of the petitioner on 30.05.2018, which was followed by a summon dated 02.06.2018 under Section 70 of the U.P. GST Act. Lastly, a summon dated 14.09.2020 was issued by the respondent no. 5- Assistant Commissioner (SIB), Commercial Tax, Range-C, Ghaziabad under Section 70 of U.P. GST Act, requiring the petitioner to explain two input tax credit taken by him.

(ii) After the aforesaid summon dated 02.06.2018 issued by the respondent no. 5, the respondent no. 4 has issued summon dated 24.07.2019 under Section 70(1) of CGST Act, 2017, requiring the petitioner to tender his statement in the inquiry. The aforesaid summon was followed by summons dated 26.08.2019 and 26.08.2020.

(iii) Once inquiry has been initiated by the respondent no. 5 under U.P. GST Act, the respondent nos. 3 and 4 cannot initiate any proceeding in view of the provisions of Section 6 (2) (b) of U.P. GST Act, 2017.

(iv) Since inquiry has already been initiated by the respondent no. 5, therefore, the respondent nos. 3 and 4 cannot initiate any inquiry against the petitioner in view of the provisions of Section 6(2)(b) of U.P. GST Act, 2017.

4. Sri. C.B. Tripathi, learned special counsel for the State-respondents submits as under:-

(i) Section 6 (2) (b) of U.P. GST Act, 2017 prohibits initiation of a proceeding on the same set of facts. It does not prohibit inquiry by the authorities under U.P. Act or under Central Act.

(ii) In Section 70 of CGST Act the word “Inquiry” has been used while in Section 6(2)(b) of U.P. GST Act, 2017 the words “ Proceeding” has been used. Thus Section 6 (2)(b) prohibits “Proceeding” and not “Inquiry.” In other words “Inquiry” has not been prohibited under Section 6(2)(b) of the U.P. GST. Act, 2017.

(iii) Jurisdiction of the respondent nos. 2 and 5 under U.P. GST Act is only the State of U.P., while the jurisdiction under the Central Act, is whole of India.

(iv) The subject matter of inquiry by the respondent Nos. 3/4 under the CGST Act is different or wider than the subject matter of inquiry by the respondent No. 5 under the U.P. GST Act. The inquiry by the respondent No. 5 is confined only to some incriminating material found in the survey dated 30.05.2018 and the evidences of Input Tax Credit illegally taken by the petitioner on the basis of invoices of two alleged dealers. No such facts are indicated in the summon issued by the respondent Nos. 3/4. Thus, even the inquiry is not on the same set of facts.

5. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties.

Facts:

6. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the petitioner had obtained registration in Form GSTREG-06 under the U.P. GST Act, 2017 and the Registration Rules, w.e.f. 01.11.2017 for trade in Iron Bars and Rods and Non-Alloy Steel etc. etc. On 30.05.2018, a survey was conducted by the respondent No. 5 at the business premises of the petitioner in which no business activity was found. Consequently, the respondent No. 5 (Deputy Commissioner, S.I.B.) issued a summon to the petitioner dated 02.06.2018 under Section 70 of the U.P. GST Act requiring him to submit details of purchases and sales, list of buyers and sellers and certain other document