Follow Us :

Case Law Details

Case Name : Tvl. Al-Madhina Steel Traders Vs State Tax Officer (ST) (Madras High Court)
Appeal Number : W.P. No. 3110 of 2023 and W.M.P. No. 3177 of 2023
Date of Judgement/Order : 07/02/2023
Related Assessment Year :

Tvl. Al-Madhina Steel Traders Vs State Tax Officer (ST) (Madras High Court)

Madras High Court held that simultaneous initiation of proceedings, both by Central Authority and by the State Authority, under GST Act is impermissible under law as per the provisions of Section 6(2)(b) of the GST Act, 2017.

Facts- The petitioner has challenged the impugned summons dated 03.01.2023 issued by the first respondent on the ground that the first respondent, being the Central Authority as well as the second respondent, being the State Authority, have simultaneously initiated proceedings under the GST Act against the petitioner in respect of the same subject matter, which is impermissible under law as per the provisions of Section 6(2)(b) of the GST Act 2017.

Conclusion- This writ petition is disposed of by directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner’s reply dated 18.01.2023 to the impugned summons dated 03.01.2023 and decide as to whether the subject matter of the proceedings initiated by the second respondent as well as the proposed proceedings of the first respondent under the GST Act 2017 against the petitioner are one and the same, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case the first respondent decides that the subject matter is one and the same, they will have to necessarily drop the proposed initiation of proceedings against the petitioner as per the provisions of Section 6(2) (b) of the GST Act 2017. The first respondent is directed to give one more personal hearing to the petitioner before taking a final decision.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

By consent of both the parties, this writ petition has been taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. Challenging the impugned summons No.CBIC-DIN-20230159TK000011851E in GSTIN No.33ABNPY9008J1Z2 dated 03.01.2023, this writ petition has been filed.

3. The petitioner has challenged the impugned summons dated 03.01.2023 issued by the first respondent on the ground that the first respondent, being the Central Authority as well as the second respondent, being the State Authority, have simultaneously initiated proceedings under the GST Act against the petitioner in respect of the same subject matter, which is impermissible under law as per the provisions of Section 6(2)(b) of the GST Act 2017.

4. Heard Mr.D.Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Sai Srujan Tayi, learned Standing Counsel, who accepts notice on behalf of the first respondent and Mrs.K.Vasantha Mala, learned Government Advocate, who accepts notice on behalf of the second respondent.

5. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the second respondent would submit that proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of GST Act 2017. She would also submit that only the summons has been issued by the first respondent. It is also submitted by her that whether the Central Authority, namely, the first respondent or the State Authority, namely, the second respondent are going to initiate proceedings under the GST Act 2017 with regard to the very same subject matter, is yet to be decided. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the second respondent also would state that as of now it is not clear as to whether the subject matter of the impugned summons dated 03.01.2023 issued by the first respondent and the proceedings initiated by the second respondent against the petitioner, are one and the same.

6. The petitioner has submitted a reply dated 18.01.2023 to the impugned summons dated 03.01.2023 to the first respondent. Even before a decision is taken by the first respondent with regard to the contentions raised in the reply filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has filed this writ petition prematurely. The petitioner will have to necessarily await the outcome of the decision of the first respondent. However, it is mandatory on the part of the first respondent to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner expeditiously and take a call as to whether the subject matter is one and the same.

7. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner’s reply dated 18.01.2023 to the impugned summons dated 03.01.2023 and decide as to whether the subject matter of the proceedings initiated by the second respondent as well as the proposed proceedings of the first respondent under the GST Act 2017 against the petitioner are one and the same, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case the first respondent decides that the subject matter is one and the same, they will have to necessarily drop the proposed initiation of proceedings against the petitioner as per the provisions of Section 6(2) (b) of the GST Act 2017. The first respondent is directed to give one more personal hearing to the petitioner before taking a final decision. Consequently, connected W.M.P. stands closed. No costs.

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Post by Date
May 2024
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031