9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted action, it would be the proper officer who would then conduct further proceedings under the Act. The import of the aforesaid Circular dated 5.10.2018 is to be understood to mean that when an inquiry is conducted by a proper officer of the State, an investigation is required to be done by the Central Tax Officer, the Central Tax Officer would exercise the said power for the purpose of investigation. However, it would not mean that the proceedings being conducted by the State Tax Officer would also be transferred to the Central Tax Officer and the proceedings as initiated earlier point of time would rather continue with that authority that initially commence the proceedings. Thus, it would be evidently clear from the aforesaid circular(s) that the State and Central Governments have been extended the same powers under the CGST and SGST Act and if one of the officers has already initiated proceedings, the same cannot be transferred to another and he alone is to issue process under the Act and take it to its logical end. The word subject-matter used in Section 6(2)(b) of the Act would mean, the nature of proceedings . In the present case, it would thus mean the proceedings initiated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner was asked to supply various documents to show the genuineness of the transactions with the suppliers. Under the said notice, the petitioner was asked to give the details of all the suppliers since September, 2021. The tax period for which the information was sought was between 01.04.2019 to 31.12.2023. It was also mentioned in the said notice that the inquiry would be a judicial inquiry. 5. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted all the documents as sought for by respondent No. 1, on 12.03.2024. 6. Thereafter, on 16.03.2024, the petitioner was issued summons by respondent No. 2 i.e. Director General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence, Rohtak, Haryana, regarding supplies made from the five suppliers. 7. According to the petitioner, the proceedings qua the five suppliers had already been initiated by respondent No. 1 in accordance with the summons dated 14.02.2024 and the petitioner accordingly on 20.03.2024 sent an e-mail communication to respondent No. 2 informing that the proceedings qua the named suppliers had already been initiated against the suppliers by respondent No. 1 and the documents qua the same had already been submitted to respondent No. 1. 8. However, respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rather the principle of natural justice was followed as summons dated 16.03.2024 were issued to the petitioner in order to provide an opportunity of being heard and opportunity was also provided to the petitioner to respond and substantiate the veracity of Input Tax Credit availed before the passing of the order dated 16.05.2024 to block Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017. The replying respondent passed an order on the basis of facts and circumstances and information available on record. Thereafter, the respondent has referred to Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017 to justify its action. 15. On merits, the averments made in the preliminary submissions have been reiterated and reproduced. 16. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the reply of respondent No. 1 wherein the averments made in the petition have been reiterated and furthermore reliance has been placed on the judgment of learned Division Bench of Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No. 2863 of 2022, titled as National Plasto Moulding vs. State of Assam Anr., decided on 05.08.2024, to contend that it is for respondent No. 1 to further investigate in the matter strictly in accordance with law and that the acts of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be appointed as a proper officer for the purpose of this Act. 20. Clause (a) of sub section 2 of Section 6 of the Act expressly provides that if a proper officer issues an order under the Act, he shall also issue an order under the SGST or the UGST Act as authorised by the said enactment under intimation of the jurisdictional Officer. 21. In conformity with the scheme of statutes in respect of Goods and Services Tax Act (the Act, the SGST Act and the UGST Act) officers under any of the said statutes can be authorized as proper officers for the purposes of proceeding under the other GST statutes as well. Section 6(1) of the Act empowers the officers appointed under the SGST Act and the UGST Act to act as proper officers for the purposes of the Act. Section 6 of the SGST Act and the UGST Act mirrors Section 6 of the Act. Consequently, the officers under the said enactments are also authorized as proper officers under the Act. 22. Further in conformity with the scheme of cross empowering officers under the said enactments, Clause (a) of Section 6(2) of the Act also empowers a proper officer to issue orders under the SGST Act and the said Act. Similarly, officers under the SGST Act an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he minutes of the meeting which reads as follows:- viii. Both the Central and State tax administrations shall have the power to take intelligence- based enforcement action in respect of the entire value chain 3. It is accordingly clarified that the officers of both Central tax and State tax are authorized to initiate Intelligence based enforcement action on the entire taxpayer's base irrespective of the administrative assignment of the taxpayer to any authority. The authority which initiates such action is empowered to complete the entire process of investigation, issuance of SCN, adjudication, recovery, filing of appeal etc. arising out of such action, 4. In other words, if an officer of the Central tax authority initiates intelligence based enforcement action against a taxpayer administratively assigned to State tax authority, the officers of Central tax authority would not transfer the said case to its State tax counterpart and would themselves take the case to its logical conclusions. 5. Similar position would remain in case of Intelligence based enforcement action Initiated by officers of State tax authorities against a taxpayer administratively assigned to the Central tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of section 6 of the respective State GST Acts respective State Tax officers and the Central Tax officers respectively are authorised to be the proper officers for the purposes of respective Acts and no separate notification is required for exercising the said powers in this case by the Central Tax Officers under the provisions of the State GST Act. It is noteworthy in this context that the registered person in GST are registered under both the CGST Act and the respective SGST/UTGST Act. 3.3 The confusion seems to be arising from the fact that, the said sub--section section provides for notification by the Government if such cross empowerment is to be subjected to conditions. It means that notification would be required only if any conditions are to be imposed. For example, Notification No. 39/2017 39/2017-CT CT dated 13.10.2017 restricts powers of the State Tax officers for the purposes of refund and they have been specified as the proper officers only under section 54 and 55 of the CGST Act and not under rule 96 of the CGST Rules, 2017 (IGST Refund on exports). If no notification is issued to impose any condition, it means that the officers of State and Centre have been appointe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
