2023 (2) TMI 539 - HC - GST

Validity of summons issued - simultaneous proceedings initiated by Central Authority as well as the second respondent, being the State Authority, under the GST Act against the petitioner in respect of the same subject matter - compliance with the provisions of Section 6(2)(b) of the GST Act 2017 or not - HELD THAT - The petitioner has submitted a reply dated 18.01.2023 to the impugned summons dated 03.01.2023 to the first respondent. Even before a decision is taken by the first respondent with regard to the contentions raised in the reply filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has filed this writ petition prematurely. The petitioner will have to necessarily await the outcome of the decision of the first respondent. However, it is mandatory on the part of the first respondent to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner expeditiously and take a call as to whether the subject matter is one and the same. This writ petition is disposed of by directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's reply dated 18.01.2023 to the impugned summons dated 03.01.2023 and decide as to whether the subject matter of the proceedings initiated by the second respondent as well as the proposed proceedings of the first respondent under the GST Act 2017 against the petitioner are one and the same, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging simultaneous proceedings by Central and State Authorities under GST Act.

Analysis:
The writ petition was filed to challenge the impugned summons issued by the Central Authority and State Authority simultaneously under the GST Act. The petitioner argued that initiating proceedings by both authorities for the same subject matter is impermissible under Section 6(2)(b) of the GST Act 2017.

During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel and the Standing Counsel for the first respondent, along with the Government Advocate for the second respondent, presented their arguments. The Government Advocate for the second respondent clarified that while proceedings had been initiated, a decision on whether the subject matter of the summons and the proceedings are the same was pending.

The petitioner had responded to the summons, but the court noted that filing the writ petition prematurely was not appropriate. The court directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's reply and determine if the subject matter of the proceedings by both authorities was identical within four weeks. If deemed the same, the first respondent was instructed to drop the proposed proceedings as per the provisions of Section 6(2)(b) of the GST Act 2017. Additionally, the first respondent was ordered to provide the petitioner with another personal hearing before making a final decision.

In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with the direction for the first respondent to promptly review the petitioner's reply and ascertain the similarity of subject matter between the two sets of proceedings.