9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jurisdiction and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India." 2. It is averred that the petitioner is a manufacturer and distributor of iron and steel in the State of Himachal Pradesh and having GST number as 02AAECH4159EIZZ. Respondent No. 1 is the authorized officer in terms of the enabling provisions of the H.P. Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017/Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). 3. The petitioner had purchased raw material from different sellers and the same had been done after satisfying itself about the genuineness of the suppliers in terms of the conditions as laid down in Section 16 of the Act. 4. On 14.02.2024, the petitioner was issued summons under Section 70 of the HP-GST/CGST Act, 2017 by respondent No. 1 i.e. State of Himachal Pradesh through the Department of State Taxes & Excise and in the said summons the petitioner was asked to supply various documents to show the genuineness of the transactions with the suppliers. Under the said notice, the petitioner was asked to give the details of all the suppliers since September, 2021. The tax period for which the information was sought was between 01.04.2019 to 31.12.2023 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner based upon the intelligence received in its office. However, since this Court is not going into the merits of the cause, the averments made in the reply need not to be referred to. 13. It is further contended that it was after finding a prima facie case regarding the petitioner being involved in availing ineligible Tax Input Credit on the strength of fake invoices for dummy entities to the tune of Rs. 1,02,16,185/-. The Tax Input Credit availed by the petitioner in its ITC Ledger was blocked in terms of Rule 86 of CGST Rules, 2017. Further, the Input Tax Credit has been blocked not with the intention to hamper the business of the petitioner but to safeguard the interest of the government revenue as envisaged in Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017. 14. It is then averred that respondent No. 1 had not passed the impugned order in violation of the principle of natural justice, rather the principle of natural justice was followed as summons dated 16.03.2024 were issued to the petitioner in order to provide an opportunity of being heard and opportunity was also provided to the petitioner to respond and substantiate the veracity of Input Tax Credit availed before the passing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal officer of State tax or Union territory tax; (b) 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 this Act on the same subject matter. (3) Any proceedings for rectification, appeal and revision, wherever applicable, of any order passed by an officer appointed under this Act shall not lie before an officer appointed under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act." 19. It is clear from the perusal of the Section 6(1) that it contains a non obstante clause and also empowers officers appointed under the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SGST Act') or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'UGST Act') to be appointed as a proper officer for the purpose of this Act. 20. Clause (a) of sub section 2 of Section 6 of the Act expressly provides that if a proper officer issues an order under the Act, he shall also issue an order under the SGST or the UGST Act as authorised by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act is to avoid multiple proceedings by the Sales Tax Officer and Central Tax Officer on the same subject matter and the Rules of purposive interpretation requires Section 6(2)(b) of the Act to be read in light of this object. 27. This would further be clear from the Circular issued by the Ministry of Finance/ Department of Revenue, dated 05.10.2018, which reads thus:- "It has been brought to the notice of the Board that there is ambiguity regarding initiation of enforcement action by the Central tax officers in case of taxpayer assigned to the State tax authority and vice versa. 2 In this regard. GST Council in its 9th meeting held on 16.01.2017 had 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 is recorded at para 28 of Agenda note no. 3 in the minutes of the meeting which reads as follows:- "viii. Both the Central and State tax administrations shall have the power to take intelligence- based enforcement action in respect of the entire value chain" 3. It is accordingly clarified that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T/UTGST Acts or whether a specific notification is required to be issued for cross empowerment on the same lines as notification No. 39/2017 39/2017-CT CT dated 13.10.2017 authorizing the State Officers for the purpose or refunds under section 54 and 55 of the CGST Act. 3.1 The issue has been examined in the light of relevant legal provisions under the CGST Act, 2017. It is observed that Section 6 of the CGST Act provides for cross empowerment of State Tax officers and Central Tax officers officers and reads as: "6. (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of this Act, the officers appointed under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act are authorised to be the proper officers for the purposes of this Act, Subject to such conditions as the Government shall, on the recommendations of the Council, by Notification specify. 3.2. Thus in terms of sub-section section (1) of section 6 of the CGST Act and subsection (1) of section 6 of the respective State GST Acts respective State Tax officers and the Central Tax officers respectively are authorised to be the proper officers for the purposes of respective Acts and no separate notifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Suppliers during the above mentioned period 3. Bank Account Statement during the above mentioned period of proof of payment made for the inward suppliers 4. Detail of vehicle involved in delivery of goods (with GR's, e-way bill and Toll receipts) payment proof of freight charges and Gate Entry detail of vehicle into your business premises during the above mentioned period. 32. It would be an entirely different matter that if there would have been another firm which has also been found to be availing fraudulent ITC, then the central government authorities would not be precluded from taking action against that firm. The independent action against some other firms would not impede the proceedings already initiated by the State Tax Authorities. Any new information which the respondent No. 2 may have gathered related to fraudulent availment or passing on can always be informed to the authorities, who already conducting the investigation, inquiry and proceedings under Section 6(2) of the Act. 33. In my considered opinion, the word "subject-matter" used in Section 6(2)(b) of the Act would mean, "the nature of proceedings". In the present case, it would thus mean the proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
