Haigreeva Infratech Projects LTD vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court noted the petitioner's contention that simultaneous assessment by both State and Central authorities is impermissible. However, the learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the 2nd respondent (State GST Authorities) had dropped the proceedings initiated by them. Furthermore, it was stated that the 3rd respondent (Central GST Authorities) had already passed assessment orders. In light of these submissions, the Court found that the writ petition had become infructuous. Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, with no order as to costs. The Court did not delve into the substantive legal question of whether simultaneous assessments are permissible, as the matter was rendered moot by the subsequent actions of the authorities.

Facts

The petitioner, Haigreeva Infratech Projects Ltd, received simultaneous notices for assessment for the period 2017-2021 from both the State GST Authorities and the Central GST Authorities (Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence). Aggrieved by these parallel proceedings, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court. The petitioner contended that they should be subject to assessment by either the State or the Central authorities, but not both concurrently. The specific order under challenge was a show cause notice dated 27.07.2023 issued by the 2nd respondent (State GST Authorities). The procedural history involves the petitioner approaching the High Court due to the dual notices.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner can be subjected to simultaneous assessment proceedings by both the State GST Authorities and the Central GST Authorities for the same tax period (2017-2021)? This issue turns on the interpretation of provisions governing the jurisdiction and powers of State and Central GST authorities under the GST regime. The petitioner argued that simultaneous assessment by both sets of authorities is impermissible, as assessment should be conducted by either the State or the Central government, but not concurrently. The revenue or State's contention, as presented through the learned Government Pleader, was that the 2nd respondent had dropped its proceedings and the 3rd respondent had already passed assessment orders, rendering the writ petition infructuous.