2023 (2) TMI 361 - HC - GST

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 ... Double prosecution under Central and State GST - same subject matter - personal hearing - premature challenge to summons - adjudication on meritsPremature challenge to summons - personal hearing - The writ petition challenging the summons was premature because the petitioner had not participated in the impugned proceedings and was directed to attend the personal hearing. - HELD THAT: - The Court observed that the petitioner had been called to produce documents and for a personal hearing under the impugned summons but had not availed the opportunity and instead approached the Court. The Court recorded that truth as to whether the proceedings of the Central and State authorities relate to the same subject matter can be ascertained only if the petitioner participates in the enquiry and states his objections. In view of the non-participation, the petition was treated as premature and the petitioner was granted one more opportunity to appear and be heard. [Paras 4, 5, 6]Writ petition disposed as premature and petitioner directed to appear for personal hearing on the fixed date and state all objections.Double prosecution under Central and State GST - same subject matter - adjudication on merits - Whether the State Authority can proceed when the Central Authority has already initiated action was not decided on merits but remanded to the State Authority for consideration after hearing the petitioner. - HELD THAT: - The Court refrained from adjudicating the core controversy on whether the State can prosecute the petitioner when proceedings under the Central Act exist, noting that no final decision had been taken by the State authority and that the petitioner must first present his objections at the personal hearing. The Court directed the fifth respondent to consider the petitioner's written and oral objections on merits and in accordance with law and thereafter decide whether prosecution under the State Act may be initiated in view of existing Central proceedings. [Paras 7]Matter remitted to the fifth respondent to decide on merits, after considering the petitioner's objections, whether prosecution under the TNGST Act, 2017 can proceed when proceedings under the CGST Act, 2017 have been initiated.Final Conclusion: The petition was disposed as premature; the petitioner was directed to appear for personal hearing and the fifth respondent was directed to consider the petitioner's objections on merits and thereafter decide whether State proceedings may be continued in view of Central proceedings. 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.