9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 419X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aintainability of the proceeding. What is barred is the initiation of the proceeding on the same subject matter by the proper officer. The words subject matter can be equated with words cause of action . The reason behind barring the initiation of proceeding on the same subject matter by the proper officer under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Act seems to be that the possibility of the final decision in the two proceedings being different cannot be totally ruled out which would create confusion. In the case of Vallabh Das v. Madan Lal and Ors [ 1970 (4) TMI 168 - SUPREME COURT] , it is held that the expression subject matter is not defined in the Civil Procedure Code. That expression includes the cause of action and the relief claimed. Unless the cause of action and the relief claimed in the second suit are the same as in the first suit, it cannot be said that the subject matter of the second suit is the same as that in the previous suit. In the present case, the opposite parties have disputed that the proceedings initiated by the officer under the State GST Act and the show cause notice issued by the DGGI relate to the same subject m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a registered dealer under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 ( in short, GST Act ) and is a private limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act. It is also registered as a medium scale industry for manufacture of caste iron products. 4. On 30.03.2022, the Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax, Zonal Unit, Bhubaneswar (opposite party No.1) along with an investigation team had visited the petitioner s place of business and seized certain records and books of accounts available there, under Section 67 of the GST Act on the reasoning that those documents were relevant to the proceedings under the GST Act. It is the petitioner s case that opposite party No.1 had conducted the investigation and seized the records and accounts for the financial years 2017 to 2021-2022 and then issued summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act, fixing the date of personal appearance on 01.04.2022. It is also the petitioner s case that the accounts for the year 2021-2022 were called upon for verification, which were not available as the date fix of such returns for the financial year commencing 31.03.2021 were not due as on the said date. The purchase figure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority is required to transfer the case to its State Tax counterpart and would themselves state the case to its logical conclusion. Similar would be the position in case of intelligence based enforcement action initiated by officers of the State Tax Authority against a tax payer administratively assigned to the Central State Tax Authority. Basing on the said circumstance and the provision under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST/OGST Act, it was the petitioner s case in W.P.(C) No.24358 of 2022 that a verification proceeding being pending before the State Government, the Officers of the Central Tax Authority ought not to have initiated the proceedings with the issuance of the summons. 7. Reliance has been placed on behalf of the petitioner upon a coordinate Bench decision of this Court dated 23.03.2021 in W.P.(C) No.158 of 2020 ( Anurag Suri v. The Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence and Other ) to support its case. 8. It is the specific case of opposite party No.2 in its counter filed in W.P.(C) No.24358 of 2022, apart from the jurisdictional competence behind issuance of notice, that the petitioner avoided to appear against the summons which he was legally duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the State Authority (CT GST) Enforcement. It has also been stated that the investigation initiated by the State CT GST Authority pertains to M/s. Anamika Enterprises, GSTIN - 21BQQPB8790R1Z0 which was one of the suppliers of the petitioner. Accordingly, the two investigations are entirely different as in the present investigation the DGGI is evaluating clandestine supply by the petitioner during the month of March 2022 and investigation by CT GST is in reference to receipt of materials from one supplier i.e. M/s. Anamika Enterprises. 11. In the rejoinder to the counter affidavit, the petitioner has denied the averments made by the counter affidavit. According to the petitioner, the disputed summons covers the period of investigation, which is between the commencement of tax periods from July 2017 to April 2022, whereas the summons issued by the opposite party No.1 is regarding disputed materials available for verification as per the show cause-cum-demand notice is only for the month of March, 2022. 12. It has also been contended in the rejoinder affidavit that in the given case, where most of the materials were seized and retained by the State Enforcement Wing and intimated to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmissions, Mr. Behura has placed reliance on Anurag Suri (supra). He has also placed reliance on the Division Bench decision of Calcutta High Court dated 30.09.2022 in M.A.T. No.1595 of 2022 in the case of M/s. R. P. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd and another v. Superintendent, CGST CX, Circle-II, Group-10 and others . Reliance has also been placed by him on a decision of Delhi High Court in case of M/s. Indo International Tobacco Ltd. and others v. Additional DGGI and others, (2021) (10) TMI 1223. 16. Mr. T.K. Satapathy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the CGST has argued, per contr a, that the two investigations are on different issues. Whereas the DGGI was investigating clandestine supply by the petitioner during the month of March, 2022 only, investigation by the State CT and GST was with reference to receipt of materials from one supplier i.e. M/s. Anamika Enterprises. He has placed reliance on another coordinate Bench decision of this Court in case of Mitambini Mishra v. Union of India and others reported in (2022) 94 GST 137 (Orissa) wherein the Bench declined to entertain the writ petition at the stage of issuance of show cause notice, with a liberty to respond to the said show caus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T Authority, upon receipt of intelligence the Opposite Party No.3 has proceeded to issue notice under Section 74 which is the provision which deals with the input tax credit wrongly availed of. 12. In other words, the State authorities do not dispute that the circular dated 5th October, 2018 but claim not to have known that the Central tax authority was seized of the matter. The Division Bench noted that the period of enquiry as far as Central tax authority was concerned was only from July, 2017 to June, 2018 whereas Opposite Party No.3 had issued a show cause notice specific for March, 2018 and, thus, there was also an overlapping of the periods. 19. Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 reads as under: Section 6 - Authorisation of officers of State tax or Union territory tax as proper officer in certain circumstances. (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) Subject to the conditions specified in the notification issued under sub-section (1) (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) where a proper officer under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act has initiated any proceedings on a subject matter, no proceedings shall be initiated by the proper officer under this Act on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
