TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 713X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is applicable vice versa. The scope of Section 6(2)(b) and Section 70 is different and distinct, as the former deals with any proceedings on a subject matter/same subject matter whereas, Section 70 deals with power to summon in an inquiry and therefore, the words proceedings and inquiry cannot be mixed up to read as if there is a bar for the respondent to invoke the power under Section 70 of the CGST Act. There is no ground made out by the appellant for quashing the summons issued by the respondent under Section 70 of the CGST Act - appeal dismissed. - W.A.No.2003 of 2021 And C.M.P.No.12863 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 1-9-2021 - Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.Sivagnanam And Honourable Mr.Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup For the Appellant : Mr.E.Om Prakash, Senior Counsel for M/s.A and N Care Solicitors For the Respondent : Mr.V.Sundareswaran, Senior Standing Counsel JUDGMENT T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, challenging the order passed in W.P.No.15708 of 2021, dated 29.07.2021. 2.The appellant is the Managing Director of a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chment to remain stayed; directing the Authorized Representative of the appellant to appear before the respondent on 29.03.2021 at 11.00 am; an opportunity of personal hearing was granted; and the respondent was directed to pass a speaking order within a time frame. Till final orders were passed, taking note of the submission that the appellant's business activity had been crippled, the representation dated 27.01.2021, was directed to be considered and appropriate interim orders shall be passed, if found tenable, considering the lifting of the provisional attachment in respect of a few Bank accounts to enable the appellant to carry on its business activities. Pursuant to such direction, the respondent had lifted the order of provisional attachment in respect of three Bank accounts, though the appellant sought for lifting the attachment in respect of seven Bank accounts. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant had filed W.P.No.11367 of 2021. 6.The petitioner filed W.P.No.12402 of 2021 challenging the order passed by the respondent dated 01.04.2021, to quash the said order and to release all the Bank accounts, which had been attached. 7.The present appeal, which arises out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n W.P.No.2723 of 2021, the summons issued by the respondent is only with a view to get over the interim order passed by the learned Writ Court. Further, it is submitted that the appellant, who is summoned to appears, is aged about 74 years and during the period of pandemic, it would be putting the appellant to great risk by travelling to Delhi. 11.The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the learned Writ Court erred in rejecting the contention advanced by the appellant by referring to Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act by observing that the said provision would have no application to the case of the appellant. 12.The learned Senior Counsel referred to the interim orders granted by the High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No.3968 of 2021 dated 25.03.2021 and 12.04.2021 (Ankit Bindal Ors. vs. Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax) and the interim order granted by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No.16271 of 2021 dated 22.12.2020. These orders have been referred to, to support the contention that repeatedly issuing the summons to the assessee by different authorities, amounts to harassment. Apart from that, the authority, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oard that it has come to its notice that there is ambiguity regarding enforcement of action by the Central Tax Officers in case of taxpayer assigned to the State tax authority and vice versa. It was stated that the GST Council, in its 9th Meeting held on 16.01.2017, discussed and made recommendations regarding administrative division of taxpayers and concomitant issues. The recommendation in relation to cross-empowerment of both tax authorities for enforcement of intelligence-based action was recorded at para 28 of the Agenda Note No.3 in the minutes of the meeting, which stated that both the Central and the State tax administrations shall have the power to take intelligence-based enforcement action in respect of the entire value chain. In terms of the said decision, the Central Board clarified that the officers of both Central tax and the State tax are authorized to initiate intelligence-based enforcement action on entire taxpayer's base irrespective of the administrative assignment of the taxpayer to any authority. It was further clarified that the authority, which initiates such action, is empowered to complete the entire process of investigation, issuance of show cause no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Unit and Another reported in 2021-TIOL-387-HC-P H-GST. 23.Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Siddhi Vinayak Trading Company vs. UoI [Writ Tax No.822 of 2020 dated 23.02.2021 (HC-Allahabad)] wherein, the clarification issued by the CBEC dated 05.10.2018, was referred to and the writ petition was filed challenging the summons issued by the Central Tax Authorities, where adjudication under Section 74 of the CGST Act was made by the State authority and the challenge of such summon was rejected. On the above grounds, the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue prayed for sustaining the order passed in the writ petition. 24.We have elaborately heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered the submissions made and the materials placed before us. 25.The challenge to the summons issued by the respondent being on the question of the jurisdiction of the respondent to issue summons, we may not be required to examine the facts regarding the search and seizure operations conducted against the appellant, the Company, the Directors, business premises etc., and it would suffice to note that the State tax authorities had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te tax authority, the Central tax authority is entitled to proceed with the matter and take it to the logical conclusions and the same principle is applicable vice versa. This circular was referred to in Siddhi Vinayak Trading Company (supra) and the challenge was rejected by referring to the above clarification issued by the CBEC. 28.Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act states that where a proper officer under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act has initiated any proceedings on a subject matter, no proceedings shall be initiated by the proper officer under the CGST Act on the same subject matter. The appellant's case rests upon the interpretation of the said provision. The key words occurring in Section 6(2)(b), viz., subject-matter are required to be interpreted to consider as to whether the challenge to the summons impugned in the writ petition was maintainable. 29.Section 70 of the CGST Act, which has been invoked by the respondent while issuing summons, empowers the proper officer under the said Act to summon any person, whose attendance he considers necessary either to give evidence or to produce a document or any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the words in any inquiry are referable to the provisions under Chapter XIV viz., Sections 67, 68, 69, 71 and 72. Thus, it was held that the proper officer may invoke power under Section 70 in any inquiry and the prohibition under Section 6(2)(b) shall come into play when any proceeding on the same subject-matter had already been initiated by a proper officer under the State Act. Therefore, the contention raised by the appellant stating that in issuance of summons for conducting an inquiry and to obtain a statement from the appellant cannot be construed to be bar under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. Thus, the key words occurring in both the provisions viz., in any inquiry and proceedings on the same-subject matter indicate the crucial difference between these two provisions. 34.It was argued that the summons impugned in the writ petition issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act merely states that the appellant is required to attend to tender statement and the summons is absolutely vague. 35.Reliance was placed by the appellant on the decision in RCT Industries and Technologies Ltd. (supra) for sustaining the writ petition and that it is maintainable as against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
