Case Law Details
S. G. Plastic Industries Vs Principal Commissioner (Allahabad High Court)
In S.G. Plastic Industries v. Principal Commissioner [Allahabad High Court, Order dated October 18, 2024], the Court addressed the issue of overlapping jurisdiction between State GST and Central GST authorities. The petitioner challenged simultaneous assessments by both authorities for the same financial years, particularly 2017-18. The petitioner argued that the State GST authority had already completed its assessment for 2017-18 under Section 74 of the CGST Act, and therefore, the Central GST authority could not initiate a parallel investigation for the same period.
The Court ruled that overlapping assessments for the same financial year are not permissible. It directed the Central GST authority to proceed with its investigation for all years except 2017-18, which had already been concluded by the State GST. Correspondingly, the State GST was barred from taking further action for financial years where the Central GST had already initiated proceedings. The case underscores the necessity of clear jurisdictional boundaries between GST authorities to prevent duplication of efforts.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The issue in this writ petition is that both the State GST Authorities and Central GST Authorities are proceeding against the petitioner with regard to the same assessment years.
3. Counsel on behalf of petitioner submits that the respondent no.3 being State GST has already completed assessment under Section 74 for the Financial Year 2017-2018. He further submits that both the authorities cannot carry out assessment for the same assessment years. A composite show cause notice has been issued for the Financial Years 2017-18 and 2023-2024 by the Central GST
4. Counsel on behalf of Central GST Authority relied on a circular dated 15th October, 2018 to counter this argument that the authority that initiates action should be allowed to complete the entire process of investigation.
5. It is clear from the factual matrix that Financial Year 2017-18, the actions were initiated by the respondent no.3 while for the remaining years the action was first initiated by the Central GST.
6. In light of the same, the Central GST is directed to continue with its investigation with regard to the show cause notice given to them except for the Financial Year 2017-18, which has already been completed by the State GST.
7. The State GST is accordingly directed not to take any action for the years in which Central GST has already taken action.
8. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed
Order Date :- 18.10.2024
Author Bio
