9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 130 - HC - GSTParallel enquiry proceedings by the officers of different jurisdiction - Issuance of summon in case survey has been conducted once, even if basis of material of inquiry/ investigation may be different - Section 70 of the C.G.S.T. Act - HELD THAT - Section 6(2)(b) prohibits initiation of proceedings by the proper officer under U.P.G.S.T. Act on the same subject-matter where a proper officer under the C.G.S.T. Act has initiated any proceedings on the same subject-matter subject to the conditions specified in the notification issued under sub-Section (1). Section 6(2)(b) of C.G.S.T. Act imposes similar prohibition upon the proper officer under the C.G.S.T. Act. Thus, Section 6(2)(b) of the C.G.S.T. Act/ U.P.G.S.T. Act prohibits initiation of any proceedings on the same subject-matter by a proper officer under the C.G.S.T. Act/ by a proper officer under the State G.S.T. Act, as the case may be, on the same subject-matter - Section 70 of the U.P.G.S.T. Act or C.G.S.T. Act is part of Chapter XIV which contains provisions for inspection, search, seizure and arrest. Section 70 of both the Acts are pari materia which empowers the proper officer under the Act to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary either to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing in any inquiry. Proper officer under the U.P.G.S.T. Act or the C.G.S.T. Act may invoke power under Section 70 in any inquiry. Prohibition of Section 6(2)(b) of the C.G.S.T. Act shall come into play only when any proceeding on the same subject-matter has already been initiated by a proper officer under the U.P.G.S.T. Act - Thus, the words any proceeding on the same subject-matter used in Section 6(2)(b) of the Act, which is subject to conditions specified in the notification issued under sub-Section (1); means any proceeding on the same cause of action and for the same dispute involving some adjudication proceedings which may include assessment proceedings, proceedings for penalties etc., proceedings for demands and recovery under Sections 73 and 74 etc. Thus, there is no proceeding by a proper officer against the petitioner on the same subject-matter referable to Section 6(2)(b) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act. It is merely an inquiry by a proper officer under Section 70 of the C.G.S.T. Act - petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the initiation of an inquiry under Section 70 of the U.P. GST Act by one authority prohibits another authority from initiating a separate inquiry under the same Act or the CGST Act. 2. Interpretation of the terms "inquiry," "proceedings," and "subject-matter" under the U.P. GST Act and CGST Act. 3. Applicability of Section 6(2)(b) of the U.P. GST Act and CGST Act in prohibiting multiple proceedings on the same subject-matter. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Initiation of Inquiry under Section 70: The petitioner argued that once an inquiry has been initiated by one authority under the U.P. GST Act, no other authority can initiate a separate inquiry under the same Act or the CGST Act. The petitioner cited the issuance of multiple summons by different authorities and contended that this was prohibited under Section 6(2)(b) of the U.P. GST Act. The respondent countered that Section 6(2)(b) prohibits proceedings, not inquiries, and that inquiries by different authorities are permissible as long as they are not on the same subject-matter. 2. Interpretation of Terms: The court examined the terms "inquiry," "proceedings," and "subject-matter" as they are not defined in the U.P. GST Act or CGST Act. The court noted that the term "inquiry" in Section 70 is specific to summoning individuals to give evidence or produce documents. It is not synonymous with "proceedings," which refer to formal adjudication processes such as assessment, demand, and recovery. The court cited previous judgments to support its interpretation, emphasizing that "inquiry" is a distinct process aimed at gathering evidence. 3. Applicability of Section 6(2)(b): The court analyzed Section 6(2)(b) of the U.P. GST Act and CGST Act, which prohibits the initiation of proceedings on the same subject-matter by different authorities. The court clarified that "subject-matter" refers to the same cause of action and dispute, and "proceedings" involve formal adjudication processes. The court concluded that Section 6(2)(b) does not apply to inquiries under Section 70, as inquiries are preliminary steps to gather evidence and do not constitute formal proceedings. Findings and Conclusions: The court concluded that: 1. The term "inquiry" under Section 70 has a specific purpose and is not synonymous with "proceedings" under Section 6(2)(b). 2. Section 6(2)(b) prohibits formal proceedings on the same subject-matter but does not prohibit separate inquiries by different authorities. 3. The facts of the case did not indicate any formal proceedings on the same subject-matter, only an inquiry under Section 70. Judgment: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments. The court held that the initiation of an inquiry under Section 70 by different authorities is permissible and does not violate Section 6(2)(b) of the U.P. GST Act or CGST Act.
|
