2023 (10) TMI 1206 - HC - GST

Jurisdiction - Initiation of proceedings by the proper officer under the MGST Act on the same subject matter, which a proper officer under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act has initiated - HELD THAT - It is found that under the CGST Act proceedings are initiated against the petitioner, however, it clearly appears that the subject matter of such investigation is in respect of the period from 1 July 2017 till 31 March 2021. As informed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, such investigation is in regard to the fraudulent ITC. Insofar as the investigation being resorted under the MGST Act by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is concerned, it is in respect of the period from 1 April 2021 to 4 October 2023. This has been clarified by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (INV-02), Investigation-A, Mumbai, vide letter dated 7 October 2023 as addressed to the petitioners. It appears that although the petitioners were asked to furnish documents for the period from 1 July 2017 till 31 March 2021, the investigation, as informed to the petitioners, under the MGST Act would be for the period from 1 April 2021 to 4 October 2023. In such context, the petitioners themselves have taken a fair stand that the petitioners by requesting the State Authorities to investigate from 1 April 2021 till the date of such letter to avoid duplication of the proceedings. At this stage, Revenue has stated that the scope of investigation as has been undertaken under the MGST Act is in respect of illegal refunds as sought by the petitioners - considering the documents on record and the contentions as raised, petitioner's contention cannot be accepted that the provisions of Section 6(2)(b) of the MGST Act, in any manner, are attracted in the facts of the present case. The petitioners are not remediless as the petitioners can invoke provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, as in the present proceedings no criminal cause of action can be subject matter of adjudication. Attachment of the property of the petitioners - HELD THAT - The petitioners have a remedy of invoking Rule 159(5) of the MGST Rules, as and when the petitioners have a cause of action to raise such contentions against the attachment. Thus, such remedy being available to the petitioners, it would be premature for the petitioners to raise any such contention in the present proceedings. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The primary issue involves the application of Section 6(2)(b) of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (MGST Act) in a case where investigations are being conducted under both the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and the MGST Act.
Summary:
The petitioners sought relief from the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, to stop the investigation initiated by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (Investigation-A) Mumbai under the MGST Act, claiming that similar proceedings were already ongoing under the CGST Act. The Court examined the timelines of the investigations under both Acts and found that the CGST Act investigation covered the period from July 2017 to March 2021, while the MGST Act investigation focused on the period from April 2021 to October 2023. The petitioners themselves requested the State Authorities to investigate only from April 2021 onwards to avoid duplication of proceedings. The Additional Government Pleader clarified that the MGST Act investigation was related to illegal refunds sought by the petitioners. The Court concluded that Section 6(2)(b) of the MGST Act was not applicable in the present case, as the investigations under both Acts covered different time periods. Additionally, the Court addressed concerns raised about potential arrest and property attachment under the MGST Act, stating that remedies were available to the petitioners under the Code of Criminal Procedure and MGST Rules, respectively. The Court disposed of the petitions while keeping all contentions under the CGST Act and MGST Act open for further consideration.