Sudip Chatterjee vs. Joint Commissioner Of State Taxes, Malda Charge And Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sudip Chatterjee, filed a writ petition challenging proceedings initiated by the CGST authority. The petitioner argued that for the same transaction and period, the State GST authority had already initiated proceedings, passed a final adjudication order, and tax and penalty had been paid. The petitioner contended that Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, bars the CGST authority from initiating fresh proceedings under these circumstances. The impugned proceeding was initiated by the CGST authority.
Held
The Court did not decide the substantive issue of maintainability. Instead, it directed the respondent-adjudicating authority to decide the issue of maintainability of the impugned pending proceeding based on the grounds raised by the petitioner in the writ petition. The adjudicating authority is to pass a reasoned and speaking order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to raise all points regarding maintainability before the adjudicating authority. The further proceedings will be contingent on the outcome of this decision on maintainability. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but rather deferred the decision on the core issue to the adjudicating authority.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned proceeding initiated by the CGST authority is maintainable in light of Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, given that the State GST authority had already initiated proceedings and adjudicated the matter for the same transaction and period, with tax and penalty paid. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017, bars the initiation of fresh proceedings by the CGST authority when the State GST authority has already taken action and adjudicated the matter for the same transaction and period. They relied on the fact that tax and penalty were already paid based on the State authority's order. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (Union of India and the State) on the maintainability of the proceedings.
Sections Cited
Section 6(2)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
19-04-2022 Item No. Subrata IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Juri iction Appellate Side WPA No.6081 of 2022 Sudip Chatterjee -vs- Joint Commissioner of State Taxes, Malda Charge & Ors. Mr. Sandip Choraria …for the petitioner Ms. Rajni Singh Dev …for the Union of India Mr. A. Ray Mr. S. Mukherjee Mr. D. Ghosh …for the State Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned proceeding initiated by CGST authority on the grounds that for the very same transaction relating to the very same period the State GST authority had already initiated the proceedings and passed final adjudication order, and on the basis of the adjudication order passed by the State GST authority, tax and penalty had already been paid, and in view of this fact, there is a bar under section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 to initiate proceeding again by CGST authority. Considering the submission of the parties, this writ petition being WPA No.6081 of 2022 stands disposed of by directing the respondent-adjudicating authority concerned to decide the issue of maintainability of the impugned pending proceeding on the ground which has been taken by the petitioner in this writ petition in accordance with law and pass a reasoned and speaking
2 order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorised representative, within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. Petitioner shall also be entitled to take all the points before the adjudicating authority concerned with regard to the maintainability of the impugned pending adjudication proceeding which has been taken in this writ petition. Further proceeding by the adjudicating authority will depend upon the outcome of the decision to be taken on the maintainability of the adjudication proceeding in question. [Md. Nizamuddin, J]
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.