Bala Trading Company And Others vs. Union Of INDIA And Others
Held
The Court noted that in view of Paragraph 9 of the respondents' reply, all counsel were in agreement that the impugned summons should be quashed. The respondents' reply clarified that the Central GST authorities had intimated the State GST authorities that all proceedings under the CGST Act and HGST Act against the petitioners would be carried out by the Central GST authorities, in terms of the CBIC's communication and Section 6 of the CGST Act, 2017. This effectively meant that the State authorities would not proceed independently, thus resolving the issue of simultaneous action. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned summons. The petition was disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.
Facts
The petitioners, Bala Trading Company and others, filed a writ petition challenging simultaneous actions initiated against them by State and Central GST authorities. The respondents, Union of India and others, filed a short reply. Paragraph 9 of the reply stated that the Central GST authorities (Respondent No. 3) had informed the State GST authorities (Respondents No. 4 and 5) that all proceedings under the CGST Act and HGST Act against the petitioners would be carried out by Respondent No. 3. This was in accordance with a CBIC letter dated October 5, 2018, read with Section 6 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioners challenged the impugned summons issued by the authorities.
Key Issues
1. Whether the simultaneous initiation of proceedings by both Central and State GST authorities against the petitioners is permissible under the CGST Act, 2017 and HGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that the simultaneous initiation of actions by both Central and State authorities was improper and sought to quash the impugned summons. Respondent's contention: The respondents, through their reply, indicated that the Central GST authorities (Respondent No. 3) had taken over the proceedings. They relied on Para 3 of D.O.F. No. CBEC/20/43/01/2017-GST(Pt.) dated October 5, 2018, issued by the CBIC, read with Section 6 of the CGST Act, 2017, to assert that the proceedings would be consolidated under the Central authority. They did not explicitly argue against the petitioners' claim but rather presented information that led to an agreement.
Sections Cited
Section 6, CGST Act 2017
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 212 CWP-15985-2021(O&M) Decided on : 26.8.2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH AGNIHOTRI Present: Mr. Aman Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rishab Kapoor, Senior Standing counsel for respondents No. 1 and 3. ` Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, DAG, Haryana. **** AJAY TEWARI, J.(Oral)
By this petition the petitioners have challenged the simultaneous action being initiated against them by the State and the Central Authorities.
Short reply dated 24.8.2021 has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 3 in Court, the same is taken on record. Copy of the same has been supplied to the counsel for the petitioners. Para No. 9 of the reply is as follows :- “That by way of this writ petition it has come to the knowledge of the Respondent No.3 that the Respondent No. 4 and 5 have initiated investigation proceeding in accordance to Central Goods and Service Tax Act (CGST)2017 r.w. Haryana Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 (HGST) against the petitioner. That the respondent
No.3
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.