9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bareilly under Section 74 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (In short as "the UPGST Act, 2017") which is pari materia to Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (In short as "the CGST Act"). The basis of challenge is a circular dated 5.10.2018 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC), wherein decision taken in 9th meeting of GST Council held on 16.1.2017 has been narrated. The circular dated 5.10.2018 is relevant to be extracted hereunder:- "It has been brought to the notice of the Board that there is ambiguity regarding initiation of enforcement action by the Central tax officers in case of taxpayer assigned to the State tax authority and vice versa. 2. In this regard, GST Council in its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Central tax authority. 6. It is also informed that GSTN is already making changes in the IT system in this regard." The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notice/summons dated 30.10.2018 had been issued by the Central Tax Authority whereas adjudication under Section 74 of the Excise Act had been made by the State Authority. The contention is that once the Central Tax Authority had initiated action, the proceeding was required to be brought to its logical end by the same authority. The State Tax Authority could not have conducted the proceeding under Section 74 of the UPGST Act, 2017. Para '4' of the above extracted circular has been placed before the Court to substantiate the said submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing inquiry under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 which is a "judicial proceeding" within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code, for providing punishment for furnishing false evidence and interruption to any public servant in discharge of his duties. The said inquiry had been initiated as a result of search, seizure and arrest of the petitioner, where the Commissioner had reasons to believe that the petitioner had committed any of the offences specified in Section 132. Whereas for determination of tax and penalty, the proceeding under Chapter XV had been initiated in accordance with the procedure prescribed under 74 of the Act. It appears from the perusal of the order dated 8th September, 2020 that the show cause n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
