GST summons amid parallel Central and State enquiries on same transaction; taxpayer must appear, summons not quashed pending review.

Summons issued by a State GST authority was challenged as invalid on the ground that parallel proceedings by Central and State authorities on the same subject matter are impermissible under the GST regime. The HC held that whether both actions relate to the identical subject matter cannot be determined without the taxpayer's participation in the enquiry; if the subject matter is the same, the State authority cannot proceed again where the Central authority has already initiated action. Consequently, the HC declined to quash the summons, directed the taxpayer to appear and raise objections, and required the State authority to decide on merits, including whether further proceedings under the State GST Act are barred due to prior Central action.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to summons issued under TNGST Act and CGST Act regarding the same subject matter.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the summons issued by the fifth respondent under the TNGST Act and the CGST Act, arguing that both Central and State Authorities cannot simultaneously initiate proceedings against him on the same subject matter. The petitioner contended that since he was already facing proceedings by the Central Authority, the State Authority should not be allowed to initiate separate proceedings as per Section 6(2)(b) of the GST Act.

The petitioner responded to the summons issued by the fifth respondent but expressed concerns about being threatened without the outcome of the decision communicated to him. Despite no final decision taken by the fifth respondent, the petitioner chose to file a Writ Petition challenging the summons. The court emphasized the need for the petitioner to participate in the enquiry to determine if the proceedings by both authorities involve the same subject matter. The court highlighted that the truth would only emerge when the petitioner appears before the respondent and not prematurely approach the court.

The court directed the petitioner to participate in the personal hearing to state all objections regarding the action by the State Authority under the TNGST Act. By not participating in the initial personal hearing, the court granted another opportunity for the petitioner to appear before the fifth respondent on a specified date to present objections in line with his previous reply to the summons.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the Writ Petition by instructing the petitioner to attend the personal hearing on the specified date to present objections, which the fifth respondent will consider on merits and in accordance with the law. The court emphasized the importance of the petitioner's participation in the proceedings to ascertain the validity of his contentions and whether he can be prosecuted under the TNGST Act when already facing action under the CGST Act. No costs were awarded, and the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition was closed.

---