Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3903
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Sushil Kukreja, JJ
Shivalik International – Appellant
Versus
Joint Commissioner of State Tax and Excise-cum-Proper Officer – Respondent
CWP No. 7606 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Vishal Mohan, Mr. Neeraj Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Mr. Navlesh Verma, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Mr. Sushant Kaprate, Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, Ms. Godawari, Ms. Lalita Sharma, Ms. Aastha Kohli, Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Mr. Hitansh Raj
A single authority must handle tax proceedings to avoid jurisdictional conflicts.
Headnote:The petition challenges the jurisdiction of the Joint Commissioner of State Tax over parallel proceedings initiated by the Central Goods and Service Tax Commissioner pursuant to Sections 70 and 74(5) of the CGST/HPGST Act. The Court determined that only the Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax has the authority to proceed against the petitioner. The Court framed the issue around the jurisdiction of the tax authorities and concluded that the petitioner cannot face parallel proceedings for the same matter. As a result, the Court ordered that proceedings would henceforth be handled solely by the Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, allowing the State to assist but not to initiate independent actions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction over taxation proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. authority determined to handle cases. (Para 4) |
| 3. disposal of petition and costs stated. (Para 5) |
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)
The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:-
“a) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the summons issued under Section 70 (Annexure P-9) and DRC01A issued under Section 74(5) of the CGST/ HPGST Act (Annexure P-12) requiring the petitioner to appear in person and holding that action initiated by the learned respondent No.1 is without jurisdiction and as such is nullity.
b) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the revenue authority to unseal the premises of the petitioner (Annexure P-7) and unblock the credit which has been illegally blocked (Annexure P-10).”
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by parallel proceedings initiated by the Central Goods and Service Tax Commissioner alongwith the State Taxes and Excise-cum-Proper Officer.
3. It is not in dispute that it was the Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, who initiated the proceedings under Section 67 of the CGST/HPGST Act, 2017 prior in point of time and it is out of sheer ignorance of such proceedings that the Joint Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise-cum- Proper Officer also proceeded by not only carrying out the raid in the premises of the petitioner’s unit, but also sealing the same. The petitioner cannot be made to face two parallel proceedings for the same cause, that too of the same year.
4. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to direct that henceforth it would only be the Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, who would have the jurisdiction and who alone would have the authority to deal with the petitioner under Section 70 of the Act to take these proceedings to logical end. However, at the same time, the State is also permitted to assist the said authority, but would not initiate any independent proceedings.
5. It shall be open to the petitioner to approach respondent No.4 for de-sealing the premises, which prayer shall be considered strictly in accordance with law. Respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to hand over the seals of the premises to respondents No.3 and 4, so as to enable these respondents to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of accordingly, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
