9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 1270 - HC - GSTInitiation of proceedings by the Stage GST officers where Central GST officers have already initiated the proceedings - proper officer - sections 5 and 6 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - It was submitted that there cannot be two parallel investigations under the State Act as well as the Central Act - HELD THAT - Issue Notice returnable on 23rd January, 2020. By way of ad-interim relief, the respondents are restrained from taking any coercive action against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned inquiry proceedings.
Issues: Jurisdictional conflict between Central Goods and Services Tax Act and State Goods and Services Tax Act
In the judgment delivered by Honourable Ms. Justice Harsha Devani, the counsel for the petitioner highlighted the provisions of sections 5 and 6 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, specifically focusing on clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 6. It was noted that this clause prohibits the initiation of proceedings by the proper officer under the State Act if proceedings have already been initiated by the proper officer under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act on the same subject matter. Reference was made to a clarification issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, emphasizing that if the Central tax authority initiates enforcement action against a taxpayer under State jurisdiction, the case remains with the Central authority. The petitioner's counsel argued that the State authorities were aware of the investigation initiated by the Central tax authorities, indicating a conflict between parallel investigations under the State and Central Acts. The court, considering the submissions made, issued a notice returnable on 23rd January, 2020. Additionally, as an interim measure, the respondents were restrained from taking any coercive action against the petitioner in connection with the ongoing inquiry proceedings. Direct service of the order was permitted to ensure timely communication of the court's decision.
|
