TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Judge grants stay on State GST authorities' summons, rules blocking credit ledger not 'proceeding'. Affidavit exchange ordered.</h1> <h3>Raj Metal Industries & Anr. Versus Union of India & Ors.</h3> The judge granted a stay on the summons issued by State GST authorities, finding it contravened the WBGST Act. The blocking of the electronic credit ... Vires of Rule 86A of the CGST Rules/WBGST Rules and Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act/WBGST Act - blocking of the electronic credit ledger - HELD THAT:- The summons that have been issued on October 19, 2020 by the State GST is, prima facie, in violation of Section 6(2)(b) of the WBGST Act. It is directed that the stay of the above summons and any proceedings thereunder. As the vires of Rule 86A of the CGST Rules/WBGST Rules and Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act/WBGST Act is under challenge, affidavits are required to be exchanged in this matter. Accordingly, affidavits-in-opposition be filed within four weeks; reply thereto, may be filed within two weeks thereafter - the order shall not preclude the Central GST authorities to proceed in accordance with law and to continue with any proceedings that have been initiated by them. The matter is directed to appear after completion of exchange of affidavits in this matter. Issues:Challenge to vires of Rule 86A of CGST/WBGST Rules and Section 16(2)(c) of CGST Act/WBGST Act; Actions by State GST authorities regarding summons issued and blocking of electronic credit ledger.Analysis:The petitioners in this case have challenged the validity of Rule 86A of the CGST/WBGST Rules and Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST/WBGST Act. They also contest the actions taken by the State GST authorities concerning the summons issued on October 19, 2020, and the subsequent blocking of the electronic credit ledger on December 8, 2020. Counsel for the petitioners argued that as proceedings were already pending under the CGST Act, the State GST authorities had no jurisdiction to initiate separate actions. He relied on Section 6(2)(b) of the WBGST Act to support this contention and also cited a circular from the Ministry of Finance to strengthen his argument.During the hearing, the Additional Solicitor General representing the Union of India, along with counsels for the State CGST and CGST, presented their arguments. The judge, after considering the submissions, found that the summons issued by the State GST authorities on October 19, 2020, prima facie contravened Section 6(2)(b) of the WBGST Act. Consequently, the judge ordered a stay on the summons and any related proceedings. Regarding the blocking of the electronic credit ledger, the State authorities contended that this action was carried out on behalf of the Central authorities and did not fall under the definition of a 'proceeding' as outlined in the WBGST Act.As the validity of Rule 86A of the CGST/WBGST Rules and Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST/WBGST Act was under dispute, the judge directed the exchange of affidavits on this matter. Parties were instructed to file affidavits-in-opposition within four weeks, with a two-week period for replies. Importantly, the judge clarified that the order issued did not prevent the Central GST authorities from proceeding lawfully and continuing with any ongoing actions initiated by them. The case was scheduled to be heard again after the completion of the affidavit exchange process. Additionally, the judge directed the issuance of an urgent certified copy of the order to the parties upon fulfillment of all necessary requirements.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
