Court restrains coercive action due to jurisdictional conflict between Central and State tax laws.

The court issued a notice returnable on 23rd January, 2020, and restrained the respondents from taking coercive action against the petitioner in connection with ongoing inquiry proceedings due to a jurisdictional conflict between the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and State Goods and Services Tax Act. The court emphasized that if the Central tax authority initiates enforcement action against a taxpayer under State jurisdiction, the case remains with the Central authority, highlighting a conflict between parallel investigations under the State and Central Acts.

---

---

Issues: Jurisdictional conflict between Central Goods and Services Tax Act and State Goods and Services Tax Act

In the judgment delivered by Honourable Ms. Justice Harsha Devani, the counsel for the petitioner highlighted the provisions of sections 5 and 6 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, specifically focusing on clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 6. It was noted that this clause prohibits the initiation of proceedings by the proper officer under the State Act if proceedings have already been initiated by the proper officer under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act on the same subject matter. Reference was made to a clarification issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, emphasizing that if the Central tax authority initiates enforcement action against a taxpayer under State jurisdiction, the case remains with the Central authority. The petitioner's counsel argued that the State authorities were aware of the investigation initiated by the Central tax authorities, indicating a conflict between parallel investigations under the State and Central Acts.

The court, considering the submissions made, issued a notice returnable on 23rd January, 2020. Additionally, as an interim measure, the respondents were restrained from taking any coercive action against the petitioner in connection with the ongoing inquiry proceedings. Direct service of the order was permitted to ensure timely communication of the court's decision.

---