9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 847 - HC - GSTValidity of demand of GST raised by State authorities - For the same cause of action, the Central Authority has already initiated action - The State authorities argue that there was a lack of information provided by the petitioner regarding the Order-in-Original passed by respondent No. 4. They claim that timely information was not provided before the issuance of the impugned order. - HELD THAT - Considering the provisions of Section 6 of CGST Act, what is apparently evident is that once when the proceedings have already been drawn and finalized on the same set of facts and issue, there cannot be subsequent proceedings again drawn - Undisputedly, in the instant case, respondent No. 4 had already initiated proceedings and had concluded the same by passing the Order-in-Original on 31.10.2023. The said order has also been assailed by the assessee before this Court in W.P. No. 1357 of 2024 and there also appears to be an interim order granted by this Court on 12.01.2024. Given the said facts and circumstances of the case and in the teeth of Section 6 of the CGST Act, the two grounds raised by the State Authorities would not be sustainable. Firstly, mere not uploading of the order passed by the Central Authorities does not by itself empowers the State agencies to again initiate the proceedings in which the Central Authority i.e., respondent No. 4 has already initiated and passed an Order-in- Original. As regards the second ground raised by the learned State counsel that lack of proper and timely intimation by the petitioner, a correspondence made by the petitioner would show that the petitioner has in fact intimated the respondent authorities in this regard time and again. The impugned Demand Order dated 30.12.2023 for the tax period July. 2017 to March, 2018 would not be sustainable and the same deserves to be and is accordingly set aside/quashed - Petition allowed.
Issues involved:
The challenge to Demand Order u/s TGST Act and CGST Act for the tax period July, 2017 to March, 2018. Issue 1: Challenge to Demand Order under TGST Act and CGST Act - The petitioner contested the Demand Order DRC-07, dated 30.12.2023, under the TGST Act and CGST Act. - The petitioner argued that the action was invalid as the Central Authority had already taken action and passed an Order-in-Original on 31.10.2023 for the same cause of action. - The petitioner claimed that the Demand Order issued by respondent No. 2 was unlawful u/s Section 6 of CGST Act due to the prior actions of respondent No. 4. - The State counsel was directed to clarify the maintainability of subsequent proceedings by State Authorities. - The State counsel highlighted the lack of information provided by the petitioner regarding the Order-in-Original passed by respondent No. 4, leading to the issuance of the impugned order. - Reference was made to Circular No. 4 of 2023, mandating electronic uploading of original orders for legal enforceability, which had not been done in this case. - It was emphasized that once proceedings have been concluded on the same facts and issue, subsequent proceedings cannot be initiated, as was the case with respondent No. 4's actions. - The Court found that the grounds raised by State Authorities were unsustainable, as the lack of uploading the order by Central Authorities did not empower State agencies to initiate new proceedings already handled by the Central Authority. - The Court also noted that the petitioner had provided timely intimation to the authorities, and the Order-in-Original passed by respondent No. 4 had been endorsed to State agencies, indicating their awareness of the proceedings. - Consequently, the Court set aside/quashed the impugned Demand Order dated 30.12.2023, ruling it to be unsustainable for the tax period July, 2017 to March, 2018. This summary provides a detailed overview of the legal judgment, highlighting the key issues, arguments presented, and the final decision reached by the Court.
|
