2021 (2) TMI 240 - HC - GST

Interest on the delayed payment - precise argument of the learned counsel therefore is that while the petitioner has already filed the appeals against the main orders of assessment before the appellate authority, which are still pending, the respondent No.2 could not have initiated the parallel proceedings for recovery of the interest on delayed payment of tax, as the proper officer under the State Act i.e. MPGST Act has already assumed the jurisdiction - Section 50 of the Madhya Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - Be that as it may, if the petitioner has not already filed reply to the show cause notice, it would be open for the petitioner to file reply to the impugned show cause notice raising the aforesaid objection. We direct that the respondent No.2, before proceeding further on the impugned show cause notice, shall first deal with and decide the aforesaid objection of the petitioner in accordance with law. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to show cause notice and recovery notices under MPGST Act and CGST Act, jurisdiction of proper officer, parallel proceedings initiated by different officers, consideration of objections before proper officer, disposal of petition.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice and recovery notices issued by different officers under the MPGST Act and CGST Act. The petitioner argued that as per Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, no proceedings can be initiated by another proper officer on the same subject matter if one officer has already initiated proceedings. The petitioner had filed appeals against the assessment orders before the appellate authority, which were still pending, when the show cause notice was issued by a different officer for the same interest on delayed payment. The contention was that the proper officer under the MPGST Act had already assumed jurisdiction, and therefore, the parallel proceedings initiated by the respondent No.2 were not valid.

The respondent No.2 contended that the writ petition against the show cause notice should not be entertained, and the petitioner should submit a reply to the notice, raising objections before the proper officer for consideration and decision in accordance with the law. The petitioner informed the court that a reply had been filed, but no decision had been taken by the respondent No.2 on that reply. The court directed the respondent No.2 to first address and decide the objections raised by the petitioner before proceeding further on the show cause notice. The petitioner was given the opportunity to file a reply to the show cause notice, raising the objection regarding the jurisdiction issue.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the petition with the observation that the respondent No.2 must address and decide the objections raised by the petitioner before taking further action on the show cause notice. The court upheld the petitioner's right to raise objections regarding the jurisdiction of the proper officer and emphasized the need for the respondent No.2 to act in accordance with the law while considering the objections raised by the petitioner.