TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 713
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s that the company, in which the appellant is the Managing Director, was promoted by him, because a pioneer in the transport business and has achieved the present status out of dedication and hard work. The company held by the family members of the appellant as the shareholders and continued to offer bus services to its customers. The appellant received a notice dated 17.12.2020 from the Assistant Commissioner (SC), Salem stating that there are certain discrepancies in the GST returns in GSTR-3B filed by the appellant for the financial years 2018-19 and 2019-20, while compared with the online service providers returns of the appellant viz., GSTR-8. The appellant submitted explanation with appropriate details, vide letter dated 29.12.2020. While so on 19.01.2021, the respondent conducted a search in the premiss of the appellant and the appellant would state that they were harassed and their employees were attacked, which necessitated lodging of a complaint with the police concerned and a case had been registered. 4.It is the further case of the appellant that the respondent on 20.01.2021, issued summons to the Managing Director and the Directors of the Company under Section 70 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unsel appearing for M/s.A and N Care Solicitors submitted that the appellant's company falls within the State jurisdiction under the State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the SGST Act") and the respondent is an authority with the central jurisdiction and therefore, he has no jurisdiction to initiate any proceedings under the CGST/SGST Act more so when, the State authority had already initiated action and the matter is pending at different stages. 9.Further, it is submitted that the summons had been issued without any authority of law and by overlapping assessment jurisdiction causing untold hardship and harassment to the appellant. Further, it is submitted that the respondent had issued the impugned summons without considering that the officials at Chennai had conducted a search in the premises of the appellant and summons was issued to the appellant, which is subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.2723 of 2021 and therefore, the summons, which was impugned in the writ petition, had to be quashed on account of lack of jurisdiction. 10.Further, it is submitted that under Section 62 of the SGST Act, an assessment can be made, however, the said pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able person can come to the belief as to the action is required to be taken in the manner done so. Therefore, the learned Writ Court had enough jurisdiction to examine whether the formation of belief to satisfy if the conditions specified in the statutory provision invoked or met. In support of such contention, reliance was placed in RCT Industries and Technologies Ltd. vs. Commissioner DGST Delhi and Others reported in 2021 (46) G.S.T.L. 123 (Delhi). On the above grounds, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the summons issued by the respondent is liable to be quashed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. 14.Mr.V.Sundareswaran, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that an investigation was launched against the Company among several other such transport Companies for non-payment of GST, which was collected by them from the customers during the period July, 2017 to December, 2020. Search operations were conducted in the business premises of the appellant on 19.01.2021 and 20.01.2021 and documents and records were seized. It is submitted that from the documents, which were seized and the voluntary statements given by the employees of the Compan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tate tax counterpart and would themselves take the case to its logical conclusions. Similar the position would remain in case of intelligence-based enforcement action initiated by officers of State tax authorities against a taxpayer administratively assigned to the Central tax authority. 17.Based on such clarification, it is submitted that State tax authority as well as the Central tax authority are entitled to initiate intelligence-based enforcement action separately and cross-empowerment of both authorities is permitted under the scheme of the CGST Act. 18.Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Sanganeriya Spinning Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in 2019 (28) G.S.T.L. 442 (Raj.) wherein, the Court rejected the challenge to the vires of Section 6(1) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the notification issued by the Government dated 20.09.2017 delineating the jurisdiction of the State and Central authorities. 19.Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Dadhichi Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. vs. Chhattisgarh GST reported in 2020 (35) G.S.T.L. 4 (Chhattisgarh) with regard to the issue relating to the bar under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bench of this Court and writ appeals have been preferred and orders and directions have been issued and the matter is at that stage qua the action initiated by the State tax authorities. 26.The argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that since the State tax authorities had already initiated action, the impugned summons issued by the respondent, under Section 70 of the CGST Act, is without jurisdiction. Further, it is submitted that the summons calls upon the appellant to tender statement by directing his physical appearance at New Delhi and during the time of pandemic, it will be a great risk for the appellant, who is aged more than 70 years, who has to travel over to Delhi by responding to the summons more particularly, when action had already been initiated by the State tax authorities and the jurisdiction of the authority to initiate action is subject matter of challenge before this Court in separate proceedings. 27.Firstly, we need to take note of whether the State tax authorities and the Central tax authorities enjoy concurrent jurisdiction, the issue of cross-empowerment of the State tax authorities and the Central tax authorities. We have pointed o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sel for the appellant is that the State authority has conducted the search and seizure operations and summons had been issued, order of provisional attachment had been passed and in such situation, the respondent cannot initiate any action and issue summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act and the summons is barred as per the provisions of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. 31.We need to take note of the word "inquiry" occurring in Section 70 of the CGST Act and the proper officer has power to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing in any inquiry, in the same manner, as provided in the case of a Civil Court. The bar contained under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act is with regard to any proceedings initiated by a proper officer on a subject matter, on the same subject-matter, the proper officer under the Central Act cannot initiate any action referred. 32.In our considered view, the scope of Section 6(2)(b) and Section 70 is different and distinct, as the former deals with any "proceedings on a subject matter/same subject matter" whereas, Section 70 deals with power to summon in an inquiry and therefo....