2024 (8) TMI 1458 - HC - GST

Authorisation of officers of State Tax or Central tax as proper officer - initiation of proceedings by another proper officer on the same subject matter - Wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit - HELD THAT - The power of Inspection, Search, Seizure and Arrest as provided under Chapter XIV of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 reflects that the power which is being exercised by the proper officer in terms of Sections 69, 70, 71 and 72 of the CGST Act are purely judicial in nature. In terms of Section 70 (2) of the HGST Act, every inquiry shall be deemed to be a judicial proceedings. Issuance of show cause notice is the point of commencement of any legal proceedings. Thus, once a proper officer has initiated any proceedings as per Section 6 (2) (B) of the Act, on a subject matter, no proceedings can be initiated by another proper officer on the same subject matter. The proper officer, who has initiated proceedings in the present case, the State Tax Officer, would be empowered to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents, while the other tax statutes provide for transfer of cases from one officer to another. The scheme of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 or the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, no where provides for transferring the proceedings from one proper officer to another. Merely because the DGGI has information relating to similar fraudulent availment of ITC by other firms who may be related to the firm against which the proceedings have been initiated under Section 74 of the HGST Act by the State authority itself would not be a sufficient ground to presume that the State GST authority would not be able to conduct the proceedings or examine the culpability of the firm against whom proceedings under Section 74 of the HGST Act have been initiated. Merely because there may be other firm also against whom proceedings are initiated, there is no concept of joint proceedings. The import of the circular dated 05.10.2018 is to be understood to mean that when an inquiry is conducted by a proper officer of the State and investigation is required to be done by the Central Tax Officer, the Central Tax Officer would exercise the said power for the purpose of investigation - There is no reason to believe that the proceedings in any manner would be hampered or would suffer as against the company/ firm against which proceedings have been initiated under Section 74 of the Act. The entire proceedings under the GST Act for investigation relating to fraudulent availment of ITC are related to a particular firm which is registered in State of Haryana. If there is another firm which has also been found to be availing fraudulent ITC, the Central Government authorities are not precluded from taking action against that firm. Thus, independent action against some other firm would not impede the proceedings already initiated by the State Tax Authorities against the present firm. Neither it can be said to be creating any complication or multiplicity of proceedings - Any new information which the respondents may have gathered relating to fraudulent availment or passing on, can always be informed to the authority who is already conducting the investigation and inquiry and proceedings under Section 74 (1) of the Act. The proper officer, namely, Excise Taxation Officer, Shahbad had no jurisdiction to transfer the proceedings to the Central Government vide letter dated 08.07.2020 and 15.03.2022 and the same are quashed and set aside - the Excise Taxation Officer-cum-proper officer, Shahbad, shall continue with the proceedings initiated under Section 74(1) of the HGST Act against the petitioner-company and shall also examine all the aspects which may have been revealed relating to evasion of tax or availment of ITC after 22.07.2019. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC).
2. Jurisdiction and authority of State vs. Central tax officers.
3. Transfer of proceedings between State and Central authorities.
4. Validity of multiple proceedings on the same subject matter.
5. Interpretation of Section 6(2)(B) of the CGST Act, 2017.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Wrongful Availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC):
The petitioner, a manufacturer of lead alloys, was investigated by the Haryana State Tax Department and multiple DGGI Zonal Units for wrongful availment of ITC. The Director General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) conducted search and seizure operations and found that records/documents had already been seized by the State Government authorities. Investigations revealed that the petitioner was involved with a mastermind, Anant Rastogi, who created fake firms to facilitate fraudulent ITC availment. The petitioner was found to have availed fraudulent ITC amounting to Rs. 23.77 crores involving taxable supplies of Rs. 132.05 crores.

2. Jurisdiction and Authority of State vs. Central Tax Officers:
The petitioner challenged the transfer of proceedings from the State Tax Officer to the DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit, arguing it violated Section 6(2)(B) of the HGST Act. The petitioner contended that the proper officer under Section 74(2) of the Act should continue the proceedings and that multiple proceedings cannot be allowed. The court examined Section 6(2)(B) of the CGST Act, which states that once a proper officer initiates proceedings, no other officer can initiate proceedings on the same subject matter.

3. Transfer of Proceedings Between State and Central Authorities:
The petitioner argued that there is no provision under the CGST/HGST Acts for transferring proceedings between State and Central authorities, unlike other tax statutes like the Income Tax Act. The court found that the GST Act does not provide for transferring proceedings from one proper officer to another and that such transfers are not permissible. The court quashed the transfer of proceedings to the DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit, and directed the State Tax Officer to continue the proceedings.

4. Validity of Multiple Proceedings on the Same Subject Matter:
The court held that once proceedings are initiated by a proper officer, no other officer can initiate proceedings on the same subject matter. The court emphasized that the GST Act empowers both State and Central authorities equally, and judicial proceedings cannot be transferred by administrative actions. The court found that multiple proceedings would lead to complications and multiplicity, which is contrary to the provisions of the GST Act.

5. Interpretation of Section 6(2)(B) of the CGST Act, 2017:
The court interpreted Section 6(2)(B) of the CGST Act to mean that once a proper officer initiates proceedings, no other officer can initiate proceedings on the same subject matter. The court held that the term "subject matter" refers to the nature of the proceedings, which in this case was the wrongful availment of ITC. The court concluded that the DGGI cannot initiate proceedings for the same subject matter for a different period if the State authorities have already initiated proceedings.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the transfer of proceedings from the State Tax Officer to the DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit, and directed the State Tax Officer to continue and conclude the proceedings under Section 74(1) of the HGST Act. The court emphasized the need for cooperation between State and Central authorities in a federal structure and held that the State Tax Officer has the jurisdiction to examine all aspects related to the evasion of tax or availment of ITC after 22.07.2019. All pending applications were disposed of, and no costs were awarded.