Quickly today, I want to share two Important Judgements with you If you have received Summons from both Centre and State GST Officials on same issues.

Stay updated! Join our Email Newsletter for exclusive Articles, updates, and announcements.

Join our Email Newsletter

First, High Court of Gujarat in the case of Himanshu Balram Gupta v. Union of India – 2020 (12) TMI 1118 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT [R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16271 OF 2020]- In favor of assessee

Facts: Assessee was registered in GST as a proprietorship firm and was under jurisdictional control of Joint Commissioner. The said authority initiated some investigation against assessee and issued summons under Section 70, however in the meantime DGGI also issued summons under Section 70 on assessee with respect to very same investigation.

Held: In the instant case, it was held that under Section 70 it is the proper officer who has the power to summon person to give evidence and produce documents. Accordingly, the proper officer under the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 is the Joint Commissioner, Central GST, Delhi South Commissionerate, who not only issued summons but also granted the permission to search the business premises of the writ applicant on the basis of his reasonable belief. In such circumstances Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad ought not to have issued any summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 with respect to the very same investigation, as it has no jurisdiction to issue any summons.

Second, High Court of Bombay in the case of SHAFI KHAN KHOKHAR VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. – 2018 (12) TMI 1354 – BOMBAY HIGH COURT [WP NO. 2951 OF 2018]- In favor of revenue

Facts: In this case assessee carried out his business in Jaipur and Mumbai, however he registered his business under CGST only in the state of Mumbai. An enquiry was initiated by Authority of Mumbai by issuing summon to him. The assessee challenged the enquiry so initiated against him on the grounds that he was already subjected to enquiry by CGST Authorities at Jaipur who have issued him a summons dated 7.9.2017. Accordingly, two parallel proceedings / enquiries under the same subject are without jurisdiction and shall be quashed.

Held: As the assessee has taken registration in the State of Mumbai, it is undisputed that he is subject to the jurisdiction of Mumbai authorities in respect of the business which he has carried out within jurisdiction of the authority. Once registration has been taken in Mumbai and some services have been rendered in Mumbai, then the assessee is subject to the jurisdiction of Mumbai Authorities and enquiry can’t be challenged merely on the grounds that the same is without jurisdiction.

Stay updated! Join our Email Newsletter for exclusive Articles, updates, and announcements.

Join our Email Newsletter
Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments