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>DGGI lacks special powers over State GST authorities in input tax credit investigations under Section 6</h1> <h3>Vivek Narsaria Versus The State of Jharkhand, The Commissioner of State Taxes, Joint Commissioner of State Taxes, Ranchi, The Principal Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax and Central Excise, The Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Jamshedpur</h3> Vivek Narsaria Versus The State of Jharkhand, The Commissioner of State Taxes, Joint Commissioner of State Taxes, Ranchi, The Principal Commissioner, ... Issues Involved:1. Authority to complete GST investigation.2. Validity of notices issued by different GST wings.3. Attachment of bank accounts.Summary:1. Authority to Complete GST Investigation:The petitioner sought a declaration that under Section 6 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and corresponding state provisions, the authority that initiated the proceedings is empowered to complete the entire process. The petitioner argued that the State Goods and Services Tax (SGST) should complete the investigation initiated by them, not the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) or the Directorate General of Goods & Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI). The court clarified that officers of both Central and State tax are authorized to initiate and complete intelligence-based enforcement actions, as per Notification No. 39/2017-Central Tax and Clarifications dated 05.10.2018 and 22.06.2020.2. Validity of Notices Issued by Different GST Wings:The petitioner challenged multiple notices from different GST wings, arguing that once the State GST initiated proceedings, further notices from CGST and DGGI were invalid. The court emphasized that Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, read with the clarifications, indicates that the authority which initiates action should complete it. The court found that the State GST had initiated proceedings earlier and should continue the investigation, directing the CGST and DGGI to transfer their investigations to the State GST.3. Attachment of Bank Accounts:The petitioner contested the attachment of their bank accounts by the DGGI under Section 83 of the CGST Act, arguing it was premature and excessive. The court observed that the attachment seemed like an 'arm twisting method' and was not justified without a determination of liability. The court directed the State GST to take over the investigation and make an immediate decision regarding the de-freezing of the bank accounts.Conclusion:The court ruled that the State GST, having initiated the proceedings first, should continue and complete the investigation. The CGST and DGGI were directed to transfer all related investigations to the State GST. The court also ordered the State GST to review the attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts promptly. The writ application was disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
