TVL. Al- Madhina  Steel Traders VS Superintendent /Intelligence Officer

The writ petition at hand, with mutual consent, has been expedited for final resolution during the admission stage. The crux of the petition revolves around contesting a summons bearing reference No. CBIC-DIN20230159TK000011851E, dated 03.01.2023, issued in relation to GSTIN No. 33ABNPY9008J1Z2.

The petitioner contends that the summons, issued on January 3, 2023, by the first respondent, who serves as the Central Authority, and the second respondent, representing the State Authority, simultaneously initiated proceedings under the GST Act concerning the same subject matter. This dual initiation of proceedings is contested on the basis of its impermissibility under Section 6(2)(b) of the GST Act 2017.

In essence, the petitioner argues against the legality of parallel proceedings initiated by both Central and State Authorities concerning identical matters under the GST Act. This challenge is grounded in the provisions of the law, specifically Section 6(2)(b) of the GST Act 2017, which the petitioner asserts prohibits such concurrent actions.

The outcome of this petition will likely hinge on the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the GST Act, with significant implications for the legality and procedural aspects of tax enforcement actions by both Central and State Authorities.

This writ petition has been brought forth with mutual agreement from both parties for its final disposition at the admission stage itself. The crux of the petition revolves around the challenge against summons No. CBIC-DIN20230159TK000011851E, issued on 03.01.2023, bearing GSTIN No. 33ABNPY9008J1Z2.

The petitioner contests the aforementioned summons issued by the first respondent, primarily on the grounds that both the Central Authority (first respondent) and the State Authority (second respondent) have initiated parallel proceedings under the GST Act against the petitioner concerning the same subject matter. This, according to the petitioner, violates Section 6(2)(b) of the GST Act 2017.

During the hearing, Mr. D. Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, presented the petitioner’s case. Additionally, Mr. Sai Srujan Tayi, learned Standing Counsel, representing the first respondent, and Mrs. K. Vasantha Mala, learned Government Advocate, representing the second respondent, acknowledged receipt of notice.

The Government Advocate appearing for the second respondent informed the court that proceedings have indeed been initiated against the petitioner under the GST Act 2017. However, she clarified that only a summons has been issued by the first respondent and emphasized that it remains unclear whether both the Central and State Authorities will proceed with actions pertaining to the same subject matter. As of now, it is yet to be determined whether the impugned summons dated 03.01.2023 and the proceedings initiated by the second respondent are addressing identical issues.

In essence, the case revolves around the perceived overlap and potential duplication of proceedings under the GST Act by both Central and State Authorities, prompting the petitioner to challenge the legality of the summons issued by the first respondent. The court is tasked with assessing the validity of these concerns and determining the course of action moving forward.

This writ petition concerns a challenge against summons issued by the Central Authority (first respondent) to the petitioner under the GST Act 2017. The petitioner argues that simultaneous proceedings initiated by both the Central Authority and the State Authority (second respondent) regarding the same subject matter are impermissible under Section 6(2)(b) of the GST Act 2017.

During the hearing, the petitioner was represented by Mr. D. Vijayakumar, while Mr. Sai Srujan Tayi, as the learned Standing Counsel, represented the first respondent, and Mrs. K. Vasantha Mala, the learned Government Advocate, represented the second respondent.

The Government Advocate representing the second respondent stated that proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner under the GST Act 2017 but clarified that it was yet to be determined whether the subject matter of the summons issued by the first respondent and the proceedings initiated by the second respondent were the same.

The petitioner had already submitted a reply to the summons before filing the writ petition. However, it was argued that the petitioner filed the petition prematurely as the first respondent hadn’t yet made a decision regarding the contentions raised in the reply. The court emphasized the necessity for the first respondent to expeditiously consider the petitioner’s reply and determine whether the subject matter of both sets of proceedings were identical.

Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition by directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner’s reply and decide within four weeks whether the subject matter of the proceedings initiated by the second respondent and the proposed proceedings by the first respondent were the same. If so, the first respondent was instructed to drop the proposed initiation of proceedings against the petitioner.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law