Case Law Details
Bio Veda Action Research Company Vs Union of India and 4 others (Allahabad High Court)
The Allahabad High Court quashed a show cause notice and order issued by the State GST authorities against Bio Veda Action Research Company, ruling that they had no jurisdiction since the CGST authorities had already initiated proceedings on the same subject matter. The petitioner challenged the order dated 25.08.2024, arguing that a show cause notice had been issued by CGST authorities on 02.06.2022. Despite raising an objection under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017, the State GST authorities proceeded to issue another notice on 30.05.2024 and passed an order without considering the petitioner’s jurisdictional objection.
During the hearing, the State GST authorities admitted that their notice was issued after the CGST authorities had already begun proceedings. Acknowledging this, they agreed to withdraw the notice or have it set aside by the court. The High Court, accepting the submission, quashed the impugned order and allowed the CGST authorities to continue their proceedings per the law. This ruling reinforces the jurisdictional separation under the CGST Act, preventing parallel actions by State and Central authorities on the same issue.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 25.08.2024 along with summary of order in Form DRC-07 to the extent prejudicial to the petitioner.
2. Submissions have been made that on the subject matter, a show cause notice dated 02.06.2022 had already been issued by the CGST authorities. On the same subject matter, the State GST authorities also issued a notice dated 30.05.2024 and though an objection with regard to the jurisdiction dated 22.08.2024 in terms of provisions of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 was raised by the petitioner without taking the same into consideration, the order impugned dated 25.08.2024 has been passed.
3. By order dated 11.11.2024, after noticing the contention raised by the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the State GST authorities was directed to complete his instructions.
4. Learned Standing Counsel, Mr. Ankur Agarwal, on instructions, submits that the notice indeed was issued subsequent to the proceedings initiated by the CGST authorities and therefore, the respondents are prepared to withdraw the same/the same may be set aside by the Court.
5. Counsel appearing for the CGST authorities submits that the proceedings before the authorities are in progress.
6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that hearing in the matter has already taken place before the CGST authorities.
7. In view of the above admitted factual and legal position, the petition, filed by the petitioner, is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.08.2024 is quashed and set aside. The CGST authorities may continue with the proceedings in accordance with law.
Author Bio
