Bio Veda Action Research Company Vs Union of India
Date: December 5, 2024
Court: High Court
Bench: Allahabad
Type: Writ Petition
Subject Matter
State GST authorities cannot issue SCN after CGST proceedings had begun on the same matter
Summary
The Allahabad High Court reviewed a case involving Bio Veda Action Research Company where the State GST authorities had issued a show cause notice and order despite the fact that the Central GST (CGST) authorities had already initiated action on the same matter. The company challenged the State authorities' actions citing a prior show cause notice from the CGST on June 2, 2022, and raised a jurisdictional objection on August 22, 2024, based on Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. - During proceedings, the State GST authorities admitted that their notice was issued after CGST proceedings had begun. Consequently, they expressed their willingness to withdraw the notice. The High Court agreed with this position, ultimately quashing the State authorities' order and allowing the CGST to continue their proceedings, thereby clarifying the separation of jurisdiction between State and Central authorities in GST matters.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 25.08.2024 along with summary of order in Form DRC-07 to the extent prejudicial to the petitioner.
2. Submissions have been made that on the subject matter, a show cause notice dated 02.06.2022 had already been issued by the CGST authorities. On the same subject matter, the State GST authorities also issued a notice dated 30.05.2024 and though an objection with regard to the jurisdiction dated 22.08.2024 in terms of provisions of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 was raised by the petitioner without taking the same into consideration, the order impugned dated 25.08.2024 has been passed.
3. By order dated 11.11.2024, after noticing the contention raised by the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the State GST authorities was directed to complete his instructions.
4. Learned Standing Counsel, Mr. Ankur Agarwal, on instructions, submits that the notice indeed was issued subsequent to the proceedings initiated by the CGST authorities and therefore, the respondents are prepared to withdraw the same/the same may be set aside by the Court.
5. Counsel appearing for the CGST authorities submits that the proceedings before the authorities are in progress.
6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that hearing in the matter has already taken place before the CGST authorities.
7. In view of the above admitted factual and legal position, the petition, filed by the petitioner, is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.08.2024 is quashed and set aside. The CGST authorities may continue with the proceedings in accordance with law.