1. Home

SGST High Court Cases

GST - Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 – Meaning of term "adjudication proceedings" - Parallel Proceedings – Initiation of Proceedings on same Subject Matter – Petitioner challenge the Show-cause Notice issued by the Central GST authorities on the premise that the State GST authorities had previously issued Show-cause Notices on the same subject matter, which were later closed/dropped - The appellant contended that the prior action by the State authorities created a jurisdictional bar under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, precluding the Central authorities from initiating any further proceedings on the same matter - Whether proceedings initiated by a State GST proper officer, which were subsequently closed without any adjudication, can act as a bar under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act against the initiation of proceedings by a Central GST proper officer on the same subject matter, especially when the Central authorities had commenced their action first - HELD - The bar under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, which prohibits a proper officer under the CGST Act from initiating proceedings on a subject matter already being proceeded upon by a proper officer under the State GST Act, is applicable only when there are "adjudication proceedings" initiated. The term "any proceeding" in this context refers to substantive actions like assessment proceedings, proceedings for penalties, or proceedings for demand and recovery under Sections 73 and 74 of the Act - In the present case, the Central GST authorities had initiated action first by conducting an inspection under Section 67(1) of the Act on 27-08-2021. The subsequent notices issued by the State GST authorities were not only later in time but were also closed and not proceeded with without specifying any reason whatsoever and without any adjudication proceeding. As there was no adjudication by the State authorities, their actions did not constitute the "initiation of any proceedings" in the sense contemplated by Section 6(2)(b) so as to create a jurisdictional bar - Furthermore, since the Central authorities were the first to initiate action, the State authorities were not competent to initiate parallel proceedings. Therefore, the proceeding initiated by the Central GST was not barred by Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act - The show-cause notice issued by the Central GST authorities is held to be valid – The writ appeal is dismissed
Download File
show more Judgements  

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GST2.0 - Expected GST Diwali Bonaza
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?