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>Landmark Provident Fund Case: Notice Issued to Respondents, RGST Act Proceedings Temporarily Restrained Under Section 6(2)(b)</h1> <h3>M/s. Larsen And Toubro Limited Versus Union Of India</h3> HC issued notice to absent respondents regarding PF payment, returnable within three weeks. The Court restrained respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 from ... Input tax credit - Time limitation - period July 2017 to March 2019 - Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act and RGST Act 2017 - HELD THAT:- Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that in respect of the same transaction, an ITC claim of the petitioner pertaining to the assessment period July 2017 to March 2019, based on similar set of transactions, already a notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act 2017 has been issued by Central Goods and Services Tax Authorities, subsequent notice by the State Authorities under RGST Act 2017 in respect of the same matter is barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act and RGST Act 2017, respondent Nos.2,3 & 4 are restrained from proceedings further pursuant to impugned show cause notice dated 31.01.2024. Issue notice to respondent Nos.2,3 & 4 on payment of PF and notice within one week, returnable within three weeks. Issues involved:1. Service of advance copy to respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 42. Bar on subsequent notice by State Authorities under CGST and RGST Act3. Interim order restraining respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 from further proceedings4. Clarification on the interim order not affecting proceedings by CGST Authorities5. Listing the case with another Civil Writ Petition6. Direction for the Registry to publish the name of the representing counselAnalysis:1. The High Court noted that while an advance copy had been served to respondent No.1, no appearance was made on behalf of respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4. Consequently, the Court decided to issue notice to the absent respondents regarding payment of PF and the notice, returnable within three weeks.2. The Court considered the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel regarding a notice issued by the Central Goods and Services Tax Authorities under the CGST Act 2017 concerning a similar transaction. Based on this, the Court concluded that a subsequent notice by the State Authorities under the RGST Act 2017 for the same matter was barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act and RGST Act 2017. Therefore, the Court restrained respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 from proceeding further pursuant to the impugned show cause notice dated 31.01.2024.3. An interim order was passed by the Court, specifying that the restriction on further proceedings by respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 should not impede respondent No.1 or the CGST Authorities from continuing with the notice issued by the CGST Authorities to the petitioner on 17.03.2022.4. The Court directed the case to be listed along with another Civil Writ Petition for further proceedings and consolidation.5. Additionally, the Court instructed the Registry to publish the name of Mr. Bharat Vyas, AAG, who typically represents the Department of Finance, Government of Rajasthan, in this matter.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
