Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2023 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 1033 - PATNA HIGH COURTJurisdiction - legality of parallel proceedings initiated by the Central Tax Officer and the State Tax Officer - petitioner issued with summons by the Central Tax Officer, pursuant to which the petitioner is said to have filed the required documents before the said authority and the State Tax Authority has initiated proceedings on the very same transaction is the contention taken - HELD THAT:- There is no prohibition in the State Tax Authority initiating an action where the Central Tax Authority is seized of the matter but, however, on the very same transaction, obviously, only one assessment can be made and it is proper that the authority, who initiated the action first, continues with it and the other authority restrains itself from so proceeding. In the present case, no such difficulty arises. The proceeding initiated by the Central Tax Authority and State Tax Authority are against different assessees. The notice issued, produced at Annexure-1, in both the writ petitions, is under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, which is the power to summon persons to give evidence to produce documents and not for intelligence based enforcement action on the noticee, who is the petitioner herein. The summons requires the petitioner herein to produce documents or things detailed as 1, 2, 3, the last of which being the details of purchases made from one M/s D.S. Bitumix, Kolkata-700001. The action, obviously, initiated by the central authority is against M/s D.S. Bitumix, Kolkata- 700001 and the summons is issued only insofar as the petitioner having dealt with the said assessee. The notice issued to the assessee by the State Tax Authority, as seen from Anenxue-3 dated 18.08.2022 in C.W.J.C No. 3279 of 2023, notices that during the course of investigation conducted by the Central Tax Authority, Kolkata, it was revealed that M/s D.S.Bitumix, Kolkata-700001, a bogus firm was engaged in availment of fake input tax credit and subsequently passing of irregular/inadmissible input tax credit to many entities. The petitioner was one such dealer, who had allegedly purchased material from the said bogus firm. The proceeding initiated by the petitioner is with respect to the input tax credit claimed by the petitioner on the purchases made from the bogus dealer. The investigation, as initiated against the supplier of the petitioner, cannot have any bearing on the action taken by the State Tax Authority against the petitioner for the relevant periods, being distinct from each other and against two separate assessees. Petition dismissed.
|