Case Law Details
R.K. Enterprise Vs Union of India & Ors. (Calcutta High Court)
The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court took note of the fact that the Central and State authorities had passed orders on the same subject matter. Though the period could be different, the subject matter was the same. Hence, having regard to the provisions contained in Section 6(2)(b) of the WBGST/CGST Act 2017, granted stay and directed that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the orders which are impugned in the writ petition.
The petitioner is engaged in the trading of iron and non-alloy steel products. The State Tax authorities (DRI&E) initiated an investigation against the petitioner, alleging that it availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) fraudulently based on invoices from non-existent suppliers. An order of seizure was issued under Section 67(2) of the WBGST Act. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice (SCN) alleging ITC availed on purchases from fictitious suppliers. The Central GST authorities also, based on intelligence, issued show cause notice for the same period on the same issue. Orders came to be passed by both authorities despite specific submission that it is overlapping. The petitioner challenged the parallel proceedings under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST/WBGST Act, which prohibits multiple proceedings on the same subject matter by different authorities.
The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court took note of the fact that the Central and State authorities had passed orders on the same subject matter. Though the period could be different, the subject matter was the same. Hence, having regard to the provisions contained in Section 6(2)(b) of the WBGST/CGST Act 2017, granted stay and directed that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the orders which are impugned in the writ petition.
Argued by Adv. Bharat Raichandani i/b UBR Legal
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record.
2. Challenging initiation of proceedings both by the State authorities and as also by the Central authorities, claiming that the same to be covered by the same subject-matter, and the consequential orders passed thereon by the Central authorities on 8th October, 2024 passed under the CGST Act, 2017 and the order dated 1st July, 2024 passed by the State Authorities under the WBGST Act, 2017, the instant writ petition has been filed.
3. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and noting that the subsequent order passed by the State authorities covers the portion of the self-same tax period and same subject-matter which form the subject-matter of adjudication made by the Central authorities on 24th October, 2024, I am of the view that the writ petition should be heard.
4. Noting as above, let this matter stand adjourned and appear under the heading ‘Motion’ in the monthly list of April, 2025.
5. Considering the nature of grievance of the petitioner and in the peculiar facts of the case and having regard to the provisions contained in Section 6(2)(b) of the WBGST/CGST Act 2017, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the orders which are impugned in the writ petition till the next date of hearing.
Author Bio
