Case Law Details
Prime Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of H.P and another (Himachal Pradesh High Court)
Himachal Pradesh High Court has disposed of a petition filed by Prime Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., which challenged the initiation of parallel proceedings by two different authorities under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner was aggrieved by summons issued by the Senior Intelligence Officer, DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit (Respondent No. 2), and the subsequent blocking of its credit ledger on the GST Portal, while the Assistant Commissioner State Taxes and Excise (Respondent No. 1) had already initiated proceedings.
Prime Steel had sought to quash the summons and the blocking of its credit ledger, arguing that these actions were without jurisdiction and violated Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, which generally prohibits proceedings on the same subject matter by different authorities.
During the court proceedings, Respondent No. 1, the Assistant Commissioner, submitted an affidavit stating that they had initiated proceedings against the petitioner earlier and that the petitioner had already submitted a reply in August 2021. They requested to conclude their ongoing proceedings.
Crucially, the High Court noted a letter dated April 24, 2025, confirming that Respondent No. 2, the Senior Intelligence Officer, DGGI, had now transferred its proceedings concerning Prime Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. to Respondent No. 1. This transfer effectively resolved the issue of parallel proceedings.
Additionally, the counsel for Respondent No. 2 informed the court that the petitioner’s ‘blocked credit ledger’ had been unblocked, with specific averments to this effect made in their reply.
Given that the parallel proceedings had been resolved through the transfer of the case to the first respondent and the credit ledger had been unblocked, the High Court concluded that the petition had “achieved its purpose” and accordingly disposed of the writ petition.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
The petitioner being aggrieved by the initiation of parallel proceedings by respondent No.1 as well as respondent No.2 by virtue of notice issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, has approached this Court by filing the instant petition for grant of the following substantive relief:-
“A) A writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the summons dated 13.12.2024 (Annexure P-8), issued by the Respondent no. 2 and consequential action of blocking the credit ledger of the petitioner on 01.01.2025 on the GST Portal on dated 01.01.2025 (Annexure P-10) & 06.01.2025 (Annexure P-14) as the same are without jurisdiction and in the teeth of Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017.”
2. On 17.03.2025, the Court passed the following order:-
“Even though the State has filed instructions dated 15.3.2025, however we are of the considered view that the stand of the respondent-State must be reflected on affidavit. Therefore, necessary affidavit be filed within two weeks.
List on 10.4.2025. In the meanwhile, reply on behalf of respondent No.2 be also filed.”
3. In compliance to the aforesaid orders, respondent No.1 has filed affidavit, wherein it is averred that the summon/notice had been issued to the petitioner on 03.08.2021 by the Assistant Commissioner State Taxes and Excise-cum-proper Officer, to which, the petitioner had submitted its reply on 17.08.2021. It is further averred that in the instant case, respondent No.2 had initiated the proceedings against the petitioner much later than the proceedings initiated by respondent No.1. Accordingly, respondent No.1 has submitted that petitioner be directed to let respondent No.1 conclude the proceedings under the CGST/HPGST Rules, 2017.
4. The record reveals that respondent No.2 i.e. Senior Intelligence Officer, DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit has now transferred the proceedings and the same are pending before the 1st respondent, as is evident from letter dated 24.04.2025, which reads thus:-
“In continuation to this office letter No. 6533 dated, 15th March, 2025 on the above. In this context, it is submitted that the instant case has already been transferred to this office by the Respondent No. 2 i.e. Senior Intelligence Officer, DGGI Meerut Zonal Unit, Ground Floor, Opp. Saheed Park, Delhi Road, Meerut vide letter No.DGGI/INV/GST/2295/2021/Pt IV/4910 dated 28.02.2025 (copy enclosed).”
5. Since the proceedings now stand transferred by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1, the instant petition has achieved its purpose and is disposed of accordingly.
6. As regards the ‘blocked credit ledger’, learned counsel for respondent No.2, on instructions, submits that the same stands unblocked and such averments has specifically been made in para 3 of the reply. The relevant portion thereof reads as under:-
“Further, communication dated 23.12.2024 received from the petitioner, was considered and its investigation has already been transferred to respondent No.1 and unblocked the Input Tax Credit.”
7. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any.
Notes:
1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
Author Bio
