9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 935 - HC - GSTIssuance of summons for procuring the presence of the noticee as a witness in the proceedings initiated - HELD THAT - As has been held by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi 2022 (1) TMI 554 - DELHI HIGH COURT , Section 6 of SGST or UGST Act or the Circular does not reckon all situations, which would arise in the course of an investigation. As has been rightly pointed out by the learned ASG and the learned Government Advocate in the present case, the investigation is not against the petitioner herein. The investigation by the State Tax Authority in Maharashtra is against one M/s. Vedam Enterprises, who is an assessee within the State of Maharashtra, whose registration has been found to be fictitious. The investigation initiated by the State Tax Authority within Bihar, at Patna is with respect to an assessee M/s. Arti Plastics, who is registered within the State of Bihar. The investigation reveals that both the said assessees, one registered in Maharashtra and the other in Bihar had dealings between themselves, based on which input tax credit was claimed by the assessee in Bihar. There are absolutely no application of the Section 6(2)(b) or the Circular and the petitioner should appear before the respective tax authorities, pursuant to the summons issued under Section 70 of the respective enactments. Considering the totality of the circumstances the State Tax authority within the State of Maharashtra are directed to issue a notice for appearance some time in the month of December, 2023 and the State Tax Authority in Patna to issue a notice some time in the month of November, 2023. If any documents are requisitioned, the petitioner would be entitled to produce it before the authority, who first requisitions it and such authority shall enable authenticated copies to be issued, at the expense of the petitioner, for production before the other authority, if so required. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Simultaneous proceedings by State and Central GST authorities. 2. Applicability of Section 6 of the GST Act and related CBEC Circular. 3. Validity of summons issued under Section 70 of the GST Act. Summary: Issue 1: Simultaneous Proceedings by State and Central GST Authorities The petitioner, a resident of West Bengal, challenged the notices issued by the State and Central GST authorities under Section 70 of the GST Act, summoning him as a witness. The petitioner argued that simultaneous proceedings by both authorities are not permissible under Section 6 of the GST Act and relied on a CBEC Circular dated 05.10.2018 to support this contention. The petitioner also cited judgments from the High Courts of Gujarat and Delhi to bolster his argument. Issue 2: Applicability of Section 6 of the GST Act and Related CBEC Circular The court examined the applicability of Section 6 and the CBEC Circular dated 05.10.2018. It was noted that Section 6(2)(b) prohibits a 'Proper Officer' from initiating proceedings on the same subject matter if another officer has already initiated proceedings. However, the court found that the investigations by the State and Central authorities were against different entities (M/s. Vedam Enterprises in Maharashtra and M/s. Arti Plastics in Bihar) and the petitioner was only summoned as a witness. The court referred to the High Court of Delhi's judgment in Indo International Tobacco Ltd., which clarified that Section 6 and the Circular have limited application and are not intended to cover all scenarios arising in GST administration. Issue 3: Validity of Summons Issued Under Section 70 of the GST Act The court emphasized that the summons issued to the petitioner under Section 70 were for him to appear as a witness and produce documents, not as a subject of investigation. The court referenced a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, which stated that Section 70 empowers the proper officer to summon any person necessary for an inquiry, distinct from proceedings under Sections 67, 73, or 74. Conclusion: The court found no merit in the petitioner's argument against the simultaneous proceedings, as the investigations were against different entities and the petitioner was summoned only as a witness. The court directed the State Tax Authority in Maharashtra to issue a notice for appearance in December 2023 and the State Tax Authority in Patna to issue a notice in November 2023. The petitioner was allowed to produce documents before the first authority that requisitions them and obtain authenticated copies for the other authority. The writ petition was dismissed.
|
