ISSUING SUMMONS NOT CONSIDERED INITIATION UNDER SECTION 6(2)(B) OF CGST ACT.
RAJATHAN HIGH COURT
Rais Khan
Vs
Add. Commissioner
Appeal Number : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3087/2024
Date of Judgement: 14/03/2024
Issue: – Does issuing a summons qualify as an initiation of proceedings under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act ?.
Background
Petitioner has preferred this Civil Writ Petition challenging the issuance of summons dated 27.09.2023 & 14.02.2024 under Section 70 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “CGST Act”) passed by Superintendent/ Appraiser/Senior Intelligence Officer DGGI and praying for quashing and setting aside of the same. It is contended by counsel appearing for the petitioner that State Authorities had initiated the proceedings and as per Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, if a proper Officer under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or 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. It is also contended that since the State Authorities had initiated action, summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act, could not have been issued by the DGGI. It is further contended that proper Officer has been defined under Section 2(91) of the CGST Act.
Para 8. In “Vivek Narsaria vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.” (supra), the proceedings were initiated by the State Goods & Services Tax Department and the petitioner was served with a notice by the Preventive Branch of CGST with a direction to reverse the Input Tax Credit along with interest and penalty on account of alleged purchases from the non-existent entity. The Jharkhand High Court observed that the State Authorities had initiated the proceedings and the same should continue with the State Authorities.
Para 9. In “M/s R.P. Buildcon Private Limited & Anr. vs. The Superintendent, CGST & CX, Circle-II, Group-10 & Ors.” (supra), the Calcutta High Court has held that since the audit proceedings under Section 65 of the CGST Act has already been commenced, the proceedings should be taken to the logical end and the proceedings initiated by Anti Evasion and Range Office should not be proceeded with any further
Para 10. The dispute before us is the issuance of summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act, when notices were already issued by the State Authorities. A prayer is made to quash and set-aside the issuance of the summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act. It is evident that against the issuance of notice by the State Authorities, petitioner had preferred writ petition before the High Court and had not put in appearance before the State Authorities.
Para 11. In the judgments referred to by counsel for the respondents, it is held that scope of Section 6(2)(b) and Section 70 of the CGST Act is different and distinct, as the former deals with any proceedings on subject matter, whereas the latter deals with power to issue 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 respondents to invoke the power under Section 70 of 2the CGST Act. In “G.K. Trading Company vs. Union of India”, the Allahabad High Court has held that issuance of summons is not initiation of proceedings referable to under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. Similar is the view of the Madras High Court in “Kuppan Gounder P.G. Natarajan vs. Directorate General of GST Intelligence, New Delhi”, wherein, the Court has also held that in issuing 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.
Para 12. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that issuance of summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act is not hit by Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, and the present Civil Writ petition being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed.
