2025 (6) TMI 746 - HC - GST

Challenge to parallel proceedings initiated by the Central Goods and Service Tax Commissioner alongwith the State Taxes and Excise-cum-Proper Officer - unsealing of premises of the petitioner - unblocking of credit which has been illegally blocked - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that it was the Commissioner Central Goods and Service Tax who initiated the proceedings under Section 67 of the CGST/HPGST Act 2017 prior in point of time and it is out of sheer ignorance of such proceedings that the Joint Commissioner State Taxes and Excise-cum- Proper Officer also proceeded by not only carrying out the raid in the premises of the petitioner s unit but also sealing the same. The petitioner cannot be made to face two parallel proceedings for the same cause that too of the same year. Therefore in the given facts and circumstances it is deemed appropriate to direct that henceforth it would only be the Commissioner Central Goods and Service Tax who would have the jurisdiction and who alone would have the authority to deal with the petitioner under Section 70 of the Act to take these proceedings to logical end. However at the same time the State is also permitted to assist the said authority but would not initiate any independent proceedings. Petition disposed off.

Summary

The Himachal Pradesh High Court, through Hon'ble Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Sushil Kukreja, addressed a petition seeking to quash summons under Section 70 and DRC01A under Section 74(5) of the CGST/HPGST Act, 2017, and to direct the unsealing of the petitioner's premises and unblocking of illegally blocked credit.The Court noted that parallel proceedings were initiated by both the Central Goods and Service Tax Commissioner and the Joint Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise-cum-Proper Officer, concerning the same cause and year. It held that "the petitioner cannot be made to face two parallel proceedings for the same cause."Accordingly, the Court ruled that only the Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, shall have jurisdiction under Section 70 of the Act to proceed with the matter, while the State authorities may assist but shall not initiate independent proceedings. The petitioner may approach the appropriate authority for de-sealing, which shall be considered "strictly in accordance with law." Respondents No.1 and 2 were directed to hand over the seals to respondents No.3 and 4 to enable lawful continuation.The petition was disposed of with parties bearing their own costs.