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>Impugned order quashed as state GST audit preceded central show-cause; summons under section 70 is an investigation, central action impermissible</h1> <h3>Bipin Kumar Agrawal Versus The Commissioner CGST and Central Excise, Rourkela and others</h3> HC quashed the impugned order and allowed the petition. The court held the state GST audit constituted a proceeding initiated before the central ... Challenge to impugned order - 'proceedings' Versus 'inquiry' - Separate proceedings by the state and central authorities - On the audit concluded (by the state GST), petitioner accepted relevant paragraphs in the report, to meet the short payment of tax. - HELD THAT:- State revenue had probed by initiating audit. In G.K. Trading Company [2021 (1) TMI 130 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] view taken includes audit to be a proceeding. Undisputed fact is, the show cause notice issued by Central revenue was after commencement of audit. A summons issued under section 70 means the process of collection of evidence or gathering of material, as by interpretation of word ‘investigation’ given by the Supreme Court in Liberty Oil Mills v. Union of India [1984 (5) TMI 236 - SUPREME COURT] with reference to investigation mentioned in provisions of Import and Export Control Act and Imports (Control) Order, 1955. There is also no dispute that subject matter of both proceeding are same. Impugned order is quashed - petition allowed. The issues presented and considered in the judgment are as follows:1. Whether the order dated 26th April, 2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, GST and Central Excise, should be interfered with due to a concluded proceeding in respect of the subject matter initiated by the Central revenue.2. Interpretation of the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, regarding the initiation of proceedings on the same subject matter by the proper officer under the Act.Detailed Analysis:The Court considered the writ petition moved by the petitioner challenging the order dated 26th April, 2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, GST and Central Excise. The petitioner argued that there was a concluded proceeding in respect of the subject matter initiated by the Central revenue, which should preclude further proceedings. The State revenue had conducted an audit for the periods 2017-18 and 2018-19, and the petitioner had accepted relevant paragraphs in the audit report to rectify the short payment of tax.The petitioner relied on a judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in G.K. Trading Company v. Union of India, which discussed the interpretation of the words 'proceedings' and 'inquiry' under the GST Acts. The Court agreed with the interpretation in the G.K. Trading Company case, emphasizing that there should not be overlap in making probes on the same subject matter under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.The Court noted that the State revenue had initiated an audit before the show cause notice was issued by the Central revenue. It held that the summons issued under section 70 of the Act was part of the process of collecting evidence or gathering material, akin to an investigation. The Court concluded that since the subject matter of both proceedings was the same, and the audit by the State revenue had already been conducted, the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was set aside and quashed.Significant Holdings:The Court held that under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, when a proper officer under the State Act has initiated proceedings on a subject matter, no proceedings shall be initiated by the proper officer under the Central Act on the same subject matter. The Court emphasized that audit should be considered a proceeding, and in this case, the audit conducted by the State revenue precluded further action by the Central revenue on the same subject matter. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed and disposed of.In conclusion, the Court's decision was based on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the GST Acts and the principle that there should not be overlapping probes on the same subject matter. The Court's analysis focused on the sequence of events, the nature of the proceedings conducted by the State revenue, and the application of the law to the facts of the case, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
