9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1086X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... State Authorities, petitioner had preferred writ petition before the High Court and had not put in appearance before the State Authorities. In the judgments referred to by counsel for the respondents, it is held that scope of Section 6(2)(b) and Section 70 of the CGST Act is different and distinct, as the former deals with any proceedings on subject matter, whereas the latter deals with power to issue summon in an inquiry and therefore, the words proceedings and inquiry cannot be mixed up to read as if there is a bar for the respondents to invoke the power u/s 70 of the CGST Act. Madras High Court in Kuppan Gounder P.G. Natarajan vs. Directorate General of GST Intelligence, [ 2021 (9) TMI 713 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] , wherein, Court has also h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce the State Authorities had initiated action, summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act, could not have been issued by the DGGI. It is further contended that proper Officer has been defined under Section 2(91) of the CGST Act. 3. It is contended that Guidelines have been issued by the GST-Investigation Wing on issuance of summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act, which are binding on the Authorities. Reliance has been placed on M/s R.P. Buildcon Private Limited Anr. vs. The Superintendent, CGST CX, Circle-II, Group-10 Ors. (M.A.T. No.1595 of 2022 with I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2022), decided by the Calcutta High Court on 30.09.2022. Reliance has also been placed on Vivek Narsaria vs. The State of Jharkhand Ors. (W.P. (T) No.4491 of 2023) decided b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2021 (54) G.S.T.L. 19 (Guj.). 7. We have considered the contentions and have perused the provisions of the Act as well as judgments cited before us. 8. In Vivek Narsaria vs. The State of Jharkhand Ors. (supra), the proceedings were initiated by the State Goods Services Tax Department and the petitioner was served with a notice by the Preventive Branch of CGST with a direction to reverse the Input Tax Credit along with interest and penalty on account of alleged purchases from the non-existent entity. The Jharkhand High Court observed that the State Authorities had initiated the proceedings and the same should continue with the State Authorities. 9. In M/s R.P. Buildcon Private Limited Anr. vs. The Superintendent, CGST CX, Circle-II, Group ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
