Just a moment...

Top
Help
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post an Article
Post a New Article
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Co Author :

In case of Co-Author, You may provide Username as per TMI records

Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Articles

Back

All Articles

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
Sort By:
Relevance Date

State GST Department not empowered to initiate proceedings when Central GST Department has already initiated the proceedings on same subject matter

Bimal jain
State GST Department Barred from Duplicate Proceedings by Central GST Under Section 6(2)(b) of GST Act 2017. The Calcutta High Court ruled that the State GST Department cannot initiate proceedings on a subject matter already addressed by the Central GST Department. This decision was based on Section 6(2)(b) of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which prohibits duplicate proceedings by different GST authorities on the same issue. The case involved a writ petition by a retail company challenging a notice and order from the State GST Department, as the Central GST Department had already issued a show cause notice on the same matter. Consequently, the court set aside the State's notice and order. (AI Summary)

The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of M/S BAAZAR STYLE RETAIL LIMITED & ANR. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, SHIBPUR CHARGE & ORS. - 2024 (9) TMI 394 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURTset aside the order and notice issued by the State GST Department when proceedings have already been initiated by the Central GST Department by relying upon the provision of Section 6(2)(b) of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017(“the WBGST Act”).

Facts:

Baazar Style Retail Ltd. (“the Petitioner”) filed a writ petition wherein the Show cause Notice dated December 27, 2023 (“the Impugned Notice”) issued for the period of FY 2018-2019 issued under Section 73 of the WBGST Act along with order dated April 27, 2024 (“the Impugned Order”) passed under Section 73(9) of the WBGST Act, by the State Revenue Department (“the Respondent”) was challenged on the ground that the Central GST Department had previously initiated the proceeding on the same subject matter by issuance of show cause-cum-demand notice in which the Petitioner has duly participated.

Issue:

Whether State GST Department empowered to initiate proceedings when Central GST Department has already initiated the proceedings on same subject matter?

Held:

The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of M/S BAAZAR STYLE RETAIL LIMITED & ANR. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, SHIBPUR CHARGE & ORS. - 2024 (9) TMI 394 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT held as under:

  • Observed that, Section 6(2)(b) of the WBGST Act has to be taken into consideration which clearly states that “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 the same subject matter”
  • Noted that, in the present case, the SCN has already been issued by the Central GST Department before the initiation of proceedings by the Respondent by issuance of the Impugned Notice and Order. 
  • Opined that, the Impugned Notice and Order therefore, are not maintainable taking into consideration the aforesaid provisions.
  • Held that, the Impugned Notice and Orders are set aide, and writ petition is disposed of.

 (Author can be reached at [email protected])

answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Articles