2021 (5) TMI 52 - HC - GST

Court grants relief in petition challenging CGST Act summons for jurisdictional errors & lack of proper application of mind.

Koenig Solutions Private Limited Versus Union Of India & Ors.

The court allowed the petition challenging the summons issued under the CGST Act, 2017, based on wrongful assumption of jurisdiction, non-compliance with ... Jurisdiction - validity of issued summons - Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has made out a prima facie case for wrongful assumption of jurisdiction. List the matter on 20.07.2021. Issues Involved:Jurisdiction of summons issued under the CGST Act, 2017; Compliance with prescribed format of summons; Wrongful assumption of jurisdiction by the concerned officer.Analysis:Issue 1: Jurisdiction of Summons under CGST Act, 2017The petitioner challenged the summons dated 30.03.2021, arguing that they were issued without jurisdiction. The petitioner contended that a prior inquiry for the same financial year had been conducted by the State Tax authority, resulting in closure after the petitioner's response. The petitioner's counsel highlighted two show cause notices issued earlier and emphasized that tax and interest for the relevant period had been paid. Reference was made to Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017, which prohibits initiating proceedings on the same subject matter if proceedings have been initiated by the State Goods and Services Tax Act officer. The court found a prima facie case of wrongful assumption of jurisdiction based on these arguments.Issue 2: Compliance with Prescribed Format of SummonsThe petitioner also raised concerns about the format of the impugned summons, stating that it was not in the prescribed format. The petitioner's counsel pointed out that the summons indicated restrictions on the petitioner's authorized representative, which appeared high-handed. The court took note of these contentions and observed that the officer seemed to be acting beyond the scope of authority by imposing restrictions on the representative.Issue 3: Wrongful Assumption of JurisdictionFurther, the petitioner argued that the impugned summons lacked application of mind as it referred to provisions irrelevant to the CGST Act, 2017. The court agreed with the petitioner's contention that there was a wrongful assumption of jurisdiction, especially considering the circumstances where the authorized representative could not attend the proceedings due to delayed receipt of the summons.In conclusion, the court allowed the petition, subject to exceptions, and issued notices to the respondents. The court also directed a stay on further proceedings based on the impugned summons until the next hearing date. The judgment highlighted the importance of jurisdictional clarity, compliance with prescribed formats, and the need for proper application of mind in issuing legal summons under the CGST Act, 2017.