GST cross-empowerment and appellate remedy principles upheld; State tax proceedings under Section 74 were treated as competent.

Cross-empowerment under GST did not bar the State tax authority from proceeding under Section 74 where the Central tax authority had earlier conducted a Section 70 inquiry for limited investigative purposes. The show cause notice and assessment proceedings under Section 74 were initiated by the proper officer, so the jurisdictional challenge failed. Allegations of absence of notice and hearing raised disputed questions of fact, and the availability of an appellate remedy under Section 107 justified refusal to entertain the writ on that ground; the petitioner was relegated to appeal for those issues.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the State tax authority lacked jurisdiction to complete proceedings under Section 74 after the Central tax authority had initiated inquiry under Section 70; (ii) whether the writ petition should be entertained on the plea of absence of notice or hearing despite the alternative appellate remedy.

Issue (i): whether the State tax authority lacked jurisdiction to complete proceedings under Section 74 after the Central tax authority had initiated inquiry under Section 70.

Analysis: The summons issued on 30.10.2018 were part of an inquiry under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which is a judicial proceeding for the limited purpose of investigation. That inquiry was distinct from the proceedings for determination and levy of tax and penalty under Section 74 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The impugned order showed that the show cause notice under Section 74 had been issued by the proper officer and the proceedings for tax and penalty were initiated by the State tax authority. In the light of the circular recognizing cross-empowerment for intelligence-based enforcement action, the challenge to jurisdiction was untenable.

Conclusion: The State tax authority was competent to proceed under Section 74, and the jurisdictional challenge failed.

Issue (ii): whether the writ petition should be entertained on the plea of absence of notice or hearing despite the alternative appellate remedy.

Analysis: The order under Section 74 recorded non-appearance of the petitioner, and the dispute regarding service of notice and denial of hearing involved disputed questions of fact. The statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was available, and such issues were left to be examined by the appellate authority without being influenced by the observations in the order.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on this ground, and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appeal.

Final Conclusion: The impugned assessment order was upheld in writ jurisdiction, while factual objections concerning notice and hearing were left for examination in appeal.

---