Case Law Details
Kuppan Gounder P.G. Natarajan Vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence (Madras High Court)
As far as Section 6(2)(b) of the Act is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that the State authorities issued a notice for intimating discrepancies in the return after scrutiny in proceedings dated 17.12.2020. The said proceedings would reveal that during the scrutiny of the return for the tax period referred certain discrepancies have been noticed. Regarding such discrepancies, the proceedings are initiated and is pending for adjudication. As far as the present summon is concerned, there was an order of seizure and earlier also, a summon was issued under Section 70 of the Act on 20.01.2021 and subsequently also, summons were issued and the investigations are in progress. The very purpose and object of Section 6(2) (b) of the Act is to ensure that on the same subject, the parallel proceedings are to be avoided. Once on a particular subject, the State authority has initiated action under the State Goods and Services Tax Act, then alone, the proper answer under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act are restrained to wait till the finalization of the proceedings initiated by the State authorities. However, in all circumstances, and in respect of various other proceedings, the benefit cannot be claimed by the assessees.
It is to be established that subject matter is one and the same. Mere pendency of proceedings before the State authorities is not a ground to restrain the Central authorities from issuing summons and conduct investigation regarding certain allegations. Therefore, all these factors require an adjudication before the competent authority and if the summons are kept in abeyance at this stage, the same would paralyze the entire proceedings, which is not only desirable, but would cause prejudice to the interest of the Revenue in the present case.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
