Mere pendency of proceedings before the State authorities is not a ground to restrain the Central authorities from issuing summons and conduct investigation regarding certain allegations.
Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 –– Parallel Investigation –– The petitioner challenged the summons issued under Section 70 of the Act, 2017. The petitioner counsel submitted that a notice for intimating discrepancies in the return after some scrutiny, was issued by the State authorities on 17.12.2020 and still the proceedings are in progress. Meanwhile, Central authorities issued summons. The counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has already filed four writ petitions and stalling entire investigation process by one way or other and he is not co-operating for the continuance and completion of the investigation process. Further submitted that the State action regarding the scrutiny proceedings of the return filed by the petitioner and the impugned summons are issued by the Central authorities under Section 70 of the Act regarding IGST. Therefore, these two are unconnected matters. The Court observed that the petitioner has approached this Court on every stage, which would reveal that he is attempting to prolong the proceedings. In terms of Section 6(2)(b) of the Act, subjects proposed to be dealt with by the State authorities as well as the Central authorities must be one and if the aggrieved person is of an opinion that the subjects are one and the same, it is for him to establish the same before the competent authority by producing the records. Mere pendency of proceedings before the State authorities is not a ground to restrain the Central authorities from issuing summons and conduct investigation.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Mere pendency of proceedings before the State authorities is not a ground to restrain the Central authorities from issuing summons and conduct investigation regarding certain allegations.
Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 –– Parallel Investigation –– The petitioner challenged the summons issued under Section 70 of the Act, 2017. The petitioner counsel submitted that a notice for intimating discrepancies in the return after some scrutiny, was issued by the State authorities on 17.12.2020 and still the proceedings are in progress. Meanwhile, Central authorities issued summons. The counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has already filed four writ petitions and stalling entire investigation process by one way or other and he is not co-operating for the continuance and completion of the investigation process. Further submitted that the State action regarding the scrutiny proceedings of the return filed by the petitioner and the impugned summons are issued by the Central authorities under Section 70 of the Act regarding IGST. Therefore, these two are unconnected matters. The Court observed that the petitioner has approached this Court on every stage, which would reveal that he is attempting to prolong the proceedings. In terms of Section 6(2)(b) of the Act, subjects proposed to be dealt with by the State authorities as well as the Central authorities must be one and if the aggrieved person is of an opinion that the subjects are one and the same, it is for him to establish the same before the competent authority by producing the records. Mere pendency of proceedings before the State authorities is not a ground to restrain the Central authorities from issuing summons and conduct investigation.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the writ petition.