2024 (6) TMI 484 - HC - GST

Seeking a direction to the first respondent to drop the proceedings initiated under Section 67 read with Section 70 of applicable GST enactments - whether the summons' relates to proceedings against M/s. GBR or Shree Sai Hanuman Smelters Private Limited? - HELD THAT - Section 70 of the CGST Act empowers officer to summon any person whose attendance is necessary in relation to the relevant enquiry. Therefore, a mandamus cannot be issued to restrain the performance of a statutory duty. Indeed, the relief of mandamus is intended to enforce and not restrain performance of statutory duties. However, it is open to the petitioner to respond to the summons and raise all contentions, including the contention that proceedings against the petitioner cannot be initiated by the CGST department on account of the judgment of this Court. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved: Direction sought to drop proceedings u/s 67 and 70 of applicable GST enactments.

The petitioner sought a direction to the first respondent to drop the proceedings initiated under Section 67 read with Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner, a registered person, contended that its assessment had been allotted to the State Goods and Services Tax (SGST) authorities, not to the CGST authorities. The petitioner participated in proceedings initiated by the SGST authorities, and the impugned summons was received under Section 70 of the CGST Act. The petitioner argued that the summons issued by the Senior Intelligence Officer of the CGST department was in breach of a previous court order stating that CGST officers should not interfere with assessments assigned to SGST authorities.

The respondents contended that the summons was in relation to proceedings against M/s. GBR, and Section 70 empowered the proper officer to summon any person necessary for the relevant enquiry. It was unclear whether the summons related to proceedings against M/s. GBR or Shree Sai Hanuman Smelters Private Limited. The court noted that a mandamus cannot be issued to restrain the performance of a statutory duty, as it is intended to enforce, not restrain, statutory duties. The petitioner was advised to respond to the summons and raise all contentions, including the argument that proceedings against the petitioner should not be initiated by the CGST department based on the previous court judgment.

The court held that the relief claimed in the writ petition could not be granted. The petitioner was directed to respond to the summons and raise all contentions, including referencing the previous court judgment. If it was found that the proceedings related to the petitioner and not M/s. GBR, the petitioner could initiate appropriate legal proceedings, provided the earlier court order continued to hold. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.