M/s. VGN Projects Estates Private Limited VS Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes)

The petitioner has contested a show cause notice issued on October 21, 2022, in Form GST DRC-01 (Ref. No. ZD331022029519P), arguing that it was issued in contravention of Section 6(2)(b) of the TNGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contends that a previous show cause notice was issued by the Central Authority under the CGST Act, 2017, on July 29, 2022, targeting the petitioner for the same alleged infractions. As a result, according to the petitioner, the subsequent notice issued under the TNGST Act is redundant and potentially illegal. The petitioner asserts that the repetition of charges across different statutes constitutes a violation of their rights and legal procedures. This challenge seeks to invalidate the show cause notice on the basis of its alleged procedural irregularities and duplicative nature. The petitioner contends that such actions undermine the principles of fairness and due process enshrined in the legal framework governing tax matters. The outcome of this challenge will likely have implications not only for the petitioner but also for the broader interpretation and application of tax laws and procedural regulations within the jurisdiction.

The petitioner has contested a show cause notice, marked as Form GST DRC-01 with Reference No. ZD331022029519P, dated 21st October 2022, asserting that its issuance contravened Section 6(2)(b) of the TNGST Act, 2017. The contention arises from a prior show cause notice issued by the Central Authority under the CGST Act, 2017 on 29th July 2022, which allegedly addressed identical issues. The petitioner invokes Section 6(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, which stipulates that if proceedings have already been initiated by the proper officer under the CGST Act on the same subject matter, no further proceedings should be instigated under the TNGST Act.

Ms. Radhika Chandra, representing the petitioner, presented the case before the court. Respondent No.1, represented by Ms. Amirtha Dinakaran, learned Government Advocate, and respondent No.2, represented by Mr. V. Sundareswaran, learned Senior Panel Counsel, acknowledged receipt of the notice.

Learned Government Advocate, speaking for respondent No.1, submitted written instructions received from the Office of the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Nungambakkam Assessment Circle, Chennai – 600 031, dated 28th January 2023. According to these instructions, the petitioner had not provided a detailed response to the impugned show cause notice. It was further indicated that if such a reply were submitted by the petitioner, any identical defects addressed by the Central Authority would be rectified, and appropriate action would be taken.

The case hinges on procedural aspects and the interpretation of Section 6(2)(b) of the TNGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contends that the issuance of the impugned notice disregards the provision due to the prior initiation of proceedings by the Central Authority under the CGST Act. However, the respondent’s position indicates a willingness to address concerns if the petitioner submits a comprehensive response to the notice.

The court will likely examine whether the initiation of proceedings under the CGST Act indeed precludes further action under the TNGST Act on the same subject matter. Additionally, the petitioner’s failure to provide a detailed response may impact the resolution of the matter. The case underscores the importance of procedural compliance and legal interpretation in matters concerning taxation under GST laws.

The petitioner has contested a show cause notice (Form GST DRC-01, Ref. No.ZD331022029519P) dated 21.10.2022, arguing that it violates Section 6(2)(b) of the TNGST Act, 2017. They claim similarity with a previous notice issued by the Central Authority under the CGST Act, 2017 on 29.07.2022, citing the same defects. According to Section 6(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, if proceedings have already been initiated by the proper officer under the CGST Act on the same subject matter, then no fresh proceedings can be initiated under the TNGST Act.

During the hearing, Ms. Radhika Chandra, representing the petitioner, presented their case, while Ms. Amirtha Dinakaran, the learned Government Advocate, accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.1, and Mr. V. Sundareswaran, learned Senior Panel Counsel, accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.2.

The learned Government Advocate presented written instructions from the Office of the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Nungambakkam Assessment Circle, Chennai – 600 031 dated 28.01.2023, indicating that the petitioner had not provided a detailed reply to the impugned show cause notice. The instructions also stated that if the petitioner submits a response, similar defects mentioned in the notice issued by the Central Authority would be addressed accordingly.

However, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the defects highlighted in both notices are identical. Therefore, invoking Section 6(2)(b) of the TNGST Act, 2017, they contended that no fresh proceedings could be initiated against the petitioner on the same subject matter.

Section 6(2)(b) of the TNGST Act, 2017 explicitly states that if proceedings have been initiated by the proper officer under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act on a specific subject matter, no further proceedings can be initiated under the TNGST Act concerning the same subject matter.

It’s important to note that the challenge pertains solely to the show cause notice issued and not to any subsequent actions or proceedings.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law