Tax Authorities Barred from Parallel Proceedings: Section 70 Limits Jurisdiction to Central GST Commissioner Only HC quashed parallel tax proceedings initiated by Central and State tax authorities against a taxpayer. The court ruled only the Central GST Commissioner ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Tax Authorities Barred from Parallel Proceedings: Section 70 Limits Jurisdiction to Central GST Commissioner Only
HC quashed parallel tax proceedings initiated by Central and State tax authorities against a taxpayer. The court ruled only the Central GST Commissioner has jurisdiction under Section 70, directing State authorities to assist but not independently proceed. The petitioner was advised to seek de-sealing through appropriate channels, with the case disposed of and parties bearing their own costs.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, through Hon'ble Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Sushil Kukreja, addressed a petition seeking to quash summons under Section 70 and DRC01A under Section 74(5) of the CGST/HPGST Act, 2017, and to direct the unsealing of the petitioner's premises and unblocking of illegally blocked credit.The Court noted that parallel proceedings were initiated by both the Central Goods and Service Tax Commissioner and the Joint Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise-cum-Proper Officer, concerning the same cause and year. It held that "the petitioner cannot be made to face two parallel proceedings for the same cause."Accordingly, the Court ruled that only the Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, shall have jurisdiction under Section 70 of the Act to proceed with the matter, while the State authorities may assist but shall not initiate independent proceedings. The petitioner may approach the appropriate authority for de-sealing, which shall be considered "strictly in accordance with law." Respondents No.1 and 2 were directed to hand over the seals to respondents No.3 and 4 to enable lawful continuation.The petition was disposed of with parties bearing their own costs.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.