M/S Prime Steel Industries PVT LTD vs. The State Of Hp And Another

Held

The Court disposed of the petition based on a consensus reached between the DGGI and the State Taxes & Excise Department. The minutes of the meeting held on 15.09.2025 indicated that the petitioner, M/s Prime Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., falls under the jurisdiction of the Barotiwala circle, Baddi, Himachal Pradesh. It was confirmed that the State Taxes & Excise Department had already initiated proceedings concerning the input tax credit availed by the petitioner for the assessment years 2019-20 to 2024-25, involving eight suppliers. Consequently, the DGGI concluded that no further investigation by their office was required regarding these suppliers. All case records held by the DGGI were to be forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner, South Zone Enforcement, State Taxes & Excise, Himachal Pradesh, for necessary action. The Court noted that in view of this decision, the summons issued by the respondent No. 2 had become redundant and unenforceable. The petitioner's grievance was deemed redressed, and the Court directed the State Tax authorities to proceed further in accordance with law to conclude the matter.

Facts

M/s Prime Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging summons issued by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Udaipur Regional Unit (respondent No. 2). The petitioner contended that these summons were issued without jurisdiction and in contravention of Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. During the proceedings, a meeting was held between the Assistant Director, DGGI, Udaipur, and the Deputy Commissioner, State Taxes & Excise, Himachal Pradesh. The meeting revealed that the petitioner falls under the jurisdiction of the Barotiwala circle in the Revenue District BBN at Baddi, Himachal Pradesh. It was also established that the State Taxes & Excise Department had initiated proceedings concerning input tax credit availed by the petitioner for assessment years 2019-20 to 2024-25, involving eight specific suppliers. The DGGI concluded that no further investigation by their office was necessary regarding these suppliers, and all case records would be forwarded to the State Taxes & Excise Department for necessary action.

Key Issues

1. Whether the summons issued by the respondent No. 2 (DGGI) are without jurisdiction and in contravention of Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, thereby warranting quashing and setting aside? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the summons issued by the DGGI were without jurisdiction. They relied on Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017, which stipulates that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where any proceedings have been initiated by an officer of central tax, an officer of State tax shall not initiate any proceedings under this Act in respect of the same subject matter. The petitioner contended that the State Tax authorities had already initiated proceedings concerning the same subject matter, making the DGGI's summons illegal. Revenue/State's Arguments: The respondent No. 2 (DGGI) did not explicitly argue against the petitioner's contentions in the provided text. However, the minutes of the meeting indicate a consensus reached between the DGGI and the State Tax authorities regarding jurisdiction and the continuation of investigations. The State Tax authorities confirmed their jurisdiction and the initiation of proceedings.