Snapshot-13-Snapshot of Latest GST Cases-

-No Interest on Input Tax Credit availed but not utilized
-Interest on Refund granted in pursuance of appeal order
-Tax Rate on Renting of Warehouse

13.-Daily-Round-up-to-the-Latest-CasesDownload

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

Cases Referred

1

Section 50

No Interest on Input
Tax Credit availed but
not utilized

Grundfos Pumps India
(P.) Ltd. v. Joint
Commissioner of GST
& Central Excise
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 176
(Madras)

The liability to pay interest under Section 50(3) of the CGST on account of the Amendment in
2022 that has retrospective effect from 2017 is only when ITC has been wrongly availed and
utilized.
In the present case, the original error of non-maintenance of ECL is admittedly attributable to
the department. Moreover, the petitioner has not utilized the credit.

Commissioner of Central
Excise v. Bombay Dyeing
Manufacturing Company-
(2007) 215 ELT3

2

Section 56

Interest on Refund
granted in pursuance
of appeal order

AC Impex v. Union of
India [2023] 150
taxmann.com 175
(Delhi

The petitioner had filed refund applications against the export made which were rejected by
the revenue. The refund was initially rejected by subsequently granted in pursuance of the
Court Order.
The issue before the High Court was the date from which statutory interest under Section 56
of CGST Act would get triggered. The petitioner claims that interest should be triggered from
the date when the initial application for refund was filed and the revenue asserts that in terms
of the proviso appended to Section 56 of the CGST Act, interest will get triggered 60 days after
the date when this court passed an order directing consideration of the application.
The High Court held that the proviso to Section 56, as indicated above, is an exception to the
main part of the Section 56 of the CGST Act. The proviso is triggered only when the facts of a
case do not fall in the main part. The proviso envisages a situation where, while processing an
application for refund, the respondents/revenue are required to deal with a lis and the refund
is a consequence of that lis. Where there is no lis with regard to either the quantum or the
value, then in our view, the proviso will have no application. The wordings of the proviso in that
context are revealing. The proviso begins with the following sentence “Provided that where
any claim of refund arises from an order passed by an adjudicating authority or Appellate
Authority or Appellate Tribunal or court which has attained finality...”
Thus, petitioner was held to be right in its contention that interest should trigger in accordance
with the main part of Section 56 of the CGST Act, i.e., from 18.04.2018, and that interest should
run, both on CGST and DGST, up until the date when the amount was remitted to the
petitioner.

- Commissioner of Income
Tax, Mysore, TravancoreCochin and Coorg,
Bangalore and Anr. v. The
Indo Mercantile Bank Ltd
and Anr., 1959 Supp (2) SCR
256
- S. Sundaram Pillai and
Ors. v. V.R. Pattabiraman
and Ors., AIR 1985 SCC 582,
paragraph 27

3

HSN 9972
and HSN
9985

Tax Rate on Renting of
Warehouse

Sudhakar Traders v.
State of Andhra
Pradesh [2023] 150
taxmann.com 174
(Andhra Pradesh

Renting Warehouse to store Agricultural Produce is considered as supply of service, and the
same is not classifiable as "loading, unloading packing, storage or warehousing of agricultural
produce, under SI. No. 54(e) of SAC 9985 of the Notification-11/2017- C.T. (Rate) dated 28th
June 2017. It would be classifiable under SAC 997212 and would attract GST @ 18% vide
entry SI. No. 16 (iii) of Notification No. 11/2017 C.T (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

-M/s SSSVK Cold Storage
Private Limited AAR
Andhra Pradesh
AAR/AP/02(GST)/2018

Snapshot-12-Snapshot of Latest GST Cases

-Determination of tax under Section 130
-Levy of Penalty only on the allegations that excess goods were found
-Service of Notice on Accountant
-Valuation of Goods by Eye Estimation or production capacity or consumption of electricity

12.-Daily-Round-up-to-the-Latest-CasesDownload

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

Cases Referred

1

Siemens India vs. State of
Maharashtra 2007 (207) ELT 168
(SC

Grant of Pre-arrest
bail

Kapil Dev Singhal
v. State of Assam
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 156
(Gauhati)

The High Court observed that sufficient incriminating materials has already been collected by
the I.O. against the petitioner and the investigation is still in progress. However, it was also
observed that the accused/petitioner appeared before the I.O. on 3-4 occasions and cooperated in the investigation of this case and he also produced the documents which was
asked to produce before the I.O. The entire case is mainly based on documentary evidence.
Thus, considering all these aspects of the case, the high court found it a fit case to extend the
privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner

2

Section 73,
Section 74,
Section 130

-Assessment/
Determination of tax
under Section 130
-Levy of Penalty only
on the allegations the
excess goods were
found at the premises
-Service of Notice on
Accountant
-Valuation of Goods
by Eye Estimation or
production capacity or
consumption of
electricity.

Maa Mahamaya Alloys
(P.) Ltd. v. State of U.P
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 158
(Allahabad

In the course of proceedings under Section 67, quantification was done by eye estimation and
goods were held to be in excess of recorded goods. It was contended by petitioner that while
proceeding to pass an order under Section 130 of the GST Act, no power is vested in the
authority to undertake determination of liability of tax, which can only be done by taking
recourse to Section 73 or Section 74 of the Act, as the case may be.
-Relying upon the decision in the matter of M/s Metenere Limited vs Union of India and
another; Writ Tax No.360 of 2020 wherein it was held that demand for tax can be quantified
and raised only in the manner prescribed in Section 73 or Section 74 of the Act, as the case
may be, the High Court observed that entire exercise resorted to under Section 130 of GST
Act for assessment/ determination of the tax and penalty is neither stipulated under the Act,
nor can be done in the manner in which it has been done, more so, in view of the fact that
department itself has undertaken the exercise of quantifying the tax due, by taking recourse
under Section 74.
-Scope of proceedings under Section 130(1)(ii) for not accounting for any goods on which
taxpayer is liable to pay tax is only available when an assessee who is liable to pay tax but
does not account for such goods, after the time of supply has occasioned.
-Scope of Proceedings under Section 130(1)(iv) for contravention of any of the provisions of
the Act or the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of tax is only available when
the department establishes that there were a contravention of the Act and Rules coupled with
the ‘intent to make payment of tax’.
-Service of Notice on the Accountant of the firm is neither contemplated nor provided for under
Section 169(1)(a) and thus, service cannot be held to be a valid service and entire proceedings
are liable to be quashed.
-There is no prescriptions for valuation of goods on the basis of eye estimation under Section
15 of CGST Act, 2017 as has been done by department or the manner in which has been
carried out by appellate authority, thus the impugned order was held to be not sustainable.

M/s Metenere Limited vs
Union of India and another;
Writ Tax No.360 of 2020

Snapshot-11-Snapshot of Latest GST Cases..

-Only summary issued in DRC-01 with no proper SCN
-No Opportunity of being heard given
-Relied upon documents not given
– Interference of High Court at SCN Stage
-SCN being an order by itself and pre-meditates the issue

11.-Daily-Round-up-to-the-Latest-CasesDownload

S.No.

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

Cases Referred

1

Section 73,
Section 74
and Section
75

-Only summary issued
in DRC-01 with no
proper SCN issued
-No Opportunity of
being heard given
-Relied upon
documents not given

Vishkarma
Industries v.
State of
Jharkhand [2023]
150 taxmann.com
140 (Jharkhand)

-High Court observed that a summary of a show cause notice cannot be a substitute of a
proper show cause notice and would entail violation of principles of natural justice. In the
absence of clear charges upon which the person so alleged is required to answer, proper
opportunity to defend itself stands denied. No opportunity of hearing was granted to the
petitioners contrary to the mandate of Section 75(4) and (5). Relied upon documents, which
were basis for passing summary order were not supplied to petitioner.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned summary of show cause and impugned
summary of order contained were quashed.

-Nkas Services Private Limited
Vrs. State of Jharkhand -2021
SCC Online Jhar 1266.
- M/s Godavari Commodities
Ltd. Vrs. State of Jharkhand.
[W.P.(T) No. 3908 of 2020
-Natwar Singh Vrs. Director of
Enforcement. 2010(13) SCC 255.

2

Section 18

Extension of time for
filing of ITC-01 on
changeover from
composition scheme
to normal

Alpha Polymers
v. Commissioner,
Central
Commissionerate
[2023] 150
taxmann.com 139
(Madras

Petitioner has made a representation for extension of time for filing of ITC-01 before the first
respondent and the first respondent instead of passing orders on the said representation,
kept the matter pending for nearly a year and thereafter, the second respondent passed the
order impugned in this writ petition stating that the petitioner's request was rejected by the
first respondent and the said order has been issued with the approval of the first respondent.
The High Court set aside the order and remitted to the first respondent, who shall pass
appropriate orders, after hearing the petitioner.

-

3

Section 73
and Section
74

Interference of High
Court at Show Cause
Notice Stage
When Show cause
notice is an order by
itself and it premeditates the issu

Joyous Blocks &
Panels (P.) Ltd.
v. Assistant
Commissioner,
Commercial
Taxes [2023] 150
taxmann.com 138
(Calcutta)

-If a show cause notice suffers from the vice of lack of jurisdiction, Courts are entitled to
interfere with the same.
-In the present matter, once inspection of the business premises was completed, a query
was raised by the officer The appellants had submitted an elaborate reply for such a query
and the authority while issuing the show cause notice has dealt with the reply under the
heading “Rebuttal on the factual points”.
The High Court observed that prima facie SCN appears to be an order and the manner of
issuing show cause notice has not been rightly understood by the authority. Partly the
appellants have to be blamed because the appellants for the query raised by the authority
had misconstrued the scope of the query and proceeded to make elaborate factual
submissions. If appellants had restricted their reply only to the extent query raised, this
problem could have been averted. Thus, not only the authority committed a mistake in
proceeding to reject all the contentions and then issued the show cause notice, equally the
appellants also committed a mistake in mentioning facts which were not required to be done
pursuant the query raised by the authority.
For the above reasons the appeal was allowed and the order passed was set aside with a
direction to isssue a fresh show cause notice with an open mind without pre-deciding any
issue

Siemens India vs. State of
Maharashtra 2007 (207) ELT 168
(SC)

Snapshot-9-One Pager Snapshot of Round up of Latest GST Cases..

-Taxability of clubs with insertion of 7(1)(aa)
-Eligibility of Main contractor to claim ITC
-Classification of Tax Rate on Mattresses
-Treatment of subsidized food provided to Employees and availability of ITC

9.-Daily-Round-up-to-the-Latest-CasesDownload

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

Cases Referred

1

Section 7
and Section
70

Taxability of club with
the insertion of Section
7(1)(aa) and question of
interference by High
Court at the stage of
Summon

Bankipore Club Ltd. v.
Union of India [2023] 150
taxmann.com 76 (Patna)

It was contended by the petitioner that club operates on the principles of agency and
having its relationship with the individual members based on the principle of mutuality,
the CGST Act was not applicable to it till the CGST Act was amended with the
insertion of Clause (aa) to Section 7 of the CGST Act by Finance Act, 2021 with effect
from 01.01.2022. Therefore, petitioner ought not to have been directed to produce
any document for the transactions prior to 01.01.2022.
In view of the wide scope of Section 70 of the CGST Act regarding power to summon
persons to give evidence and produce documents, the High Court was not inclined to
interfere with the impugned summons

-

2

Section
17(5)(c) and
(d)

Eligibility of Main
contractor to claim
Input Tax credit of the
Tax charged by Subcontracto

SR Constructions v.
Union of India [2023] 150
taxmann.com 75
(TRIPURA)

The petitioner is a construction company. They had a works contract agreement with
the M/s Hotel Polo Pvt. Ltd. and to construct a hotel. In the process of construction
they procured materials and also took the services of Sub-contractors. However,
demand on the ground that such ITC availed on works contract service for supply of
construction of an immoveable property was in violation of Section 17(5) of CGST Act
was created against the petitioners under Section 74.
It was held by the High Court that the petitioner has been providing work contract
services to the owner of the hotel and not for it’s own and thus they are entitled to
take Input Tax Credit on the Goods and Services being utilized for providing the
taxable work contract services. The demand raised and penalty imposed under
Section 74(1) of the CGST Act,2017 was held to be ultra vires

-

3

HSN 9404

Classification of Tax
Rate on Mattresses

Hosur Coir Foams (P.)
Ltd [2023] 150
taxmann.com 74 (AAR -
TAMILNADU)

Mattresses classifiable under HSN 940429 are liable to Tax @ 18% vide serial
number 438 under Schedule III of Notification No.01/2017 I.T (Rate) dated
28.06.2017, as amended.

-

4

Section 7
and Section
16

Section 7
and Section
16

Section 7
and Section
16

Section 7
and Section
16

M/s Tata Motors Ltd,
AhmedabadGUJ/GAAAR/Appeal/2022/23
dated 22.12.2022

Snapshot-8-One Pager Snapshot of Round up of Latest GST Cases..

-Constitutional Validity of Anti Profiteering Provisions
-Attachment of Bank Account U/Sec 83
– Condition directing appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.2 crores for grant of bail was not sustainable

8.-Daily-Round-up-to-the-Latest-CasesDownload

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

Cases Referred

1

Section 171

Constitutional Validity
of Anti Profiteering
Provisions Challenged

Siddha Real Estate
Development (P.) Ltd. v.
National Anti-Profiteering
Authority [2023] 150
taxmann.com 48 (Calcutta)

-The High Court was of the view that there could not be any urgency for granting any
interim order since the petitioner was sitting over the aforesaid impugned adjudication
order for the last six months.
-It is a well established principle of law that every piece of legislation should be treated
as a valid piece of legislation till the same is declared unconstitutional by any court of law
and every action taken under such law should be deemed to be valid by an authority so
long it is not declared unconstitutional. Since the constitutional validity of Section 171 of
CGST Act has been challenged, writ petition being WPA 7189 of 2023 was entertained
however, the court was not inclined to grant any interim order of stay of the aforesaid
impugned adjudication order dated 30th September, 2022 in view of the facts and
circumstances of this case as appears from record and by considering the submission of
the parties

-

2

Section 83

Attachment of Bank
Account of other
persons not being
taxable person or
covered under Section
122(1A) of CGST Act,
2017

Sakshi Bahl v. Principal
Additional Director
General [2023] 150
taxmann.com 47 (Delhi)

It is not open for the respondent to attach the bank accounts of other persons on a mere
assumption that the funds therein are owned by any taxable person and the fact is that
the petitioners are not taxable persons. The power under Section 83 of the Act, to
provisionally attach assets or bank accounts is limited to attaching the bank accounts and
assets of taxable persons and persons specified under Section 122(1A) of the Act. In
view of the above, the impugned order was not sustained.

-

3

Section 69
and Section
132

Condition directing the
appellant to deposit a
sum of Rs.2 crores for
grant of bail was not
liable to be sustained

Anatbhai Ashokbhai
Shah v. State of Gujarat
[2023] 150 taxmann.com
46 (SC

The Apex Court observed that since the facts are almost identical to the case referred,
there was no reason to deviate from the view taken in the said case vide judgment and
order dated 20.01.2023. Following the reasons given in the said judgment and order, it
was held that the condition directing the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.2 crores was
not liable to be sustained and was hereby set aside. The rest of the conditions in the
impugned order were sustained. The appeal accordingly, was allowed to that extent

Subhash
Chouhan v. UOI [2023]
147 taxmann.com 211
(SC

Part-5-Snapshot to the Cases on Cross Empowerment and Issuance of Summons/SCN for same subject by different authorities/same authority for same year/different years

Hope this would be an Interesting Read as there is a lot of debate on Cross Empowerment and Issuance of Summons/SCN for same subject by different authorities/same authority for same year/different years. The Gist provides a summary of the cases and admittedly the dust is not yet settled and would take time to settle..

5.-Daily-Round-up-to-the-Latest-CasesDownload

S.No

Case Subject

Case

Held

Favour

Cases Referred

1

Summon Issued
on same subject
matter by Central
and State
Authority

Tvl. Al-Madhina Steel
Traders v.
Superintendent/Intelligence
Officer (ECM) [2023] 148
taxmann.com 86 (Madras)
Dated 07-02-2023

It was alleged that Central Authority has issued summon on the same subject matter
on which summon has already been issued by the State Authority, which is impermissible
under law as per the provisions of section 6(2)(b) of the GST Act 2017.
The High Court directed the Central Authority to consider the reply submitted by the
petitioner and in case it is decided that the subject matter is one and the same, they will
have to necessarily drop the proposed initiation of proceedings against the petitioner as
per the provisions of section 6(2)(b) of the GST Act 2017

In Favour of
Petitioner

-

2

Summon issued
by State
Authority and by
DGGSTI

Kuppan Gounder P.G.
Natarajan v. Directorate
General of GST Intelligence
[2022] 143 taxmann.com 289
(Madras)
Dated-01-09-2021

State authority had conducted the search and seizure operations and summons had
been issued, order of provisional attachment had been passed and in such situation it was
alleged by the petitioner that Directorate General of GST Intelligence cannot initiate
any action and issue summons under section 70 of the CGST Act and the summons
is barred as per the provisions of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.
It was held that the scope of section 6(2)(b) and section 70 is different and distinct, as the
former deals with any "proceedings on a subject matter/same subject matter" whereas,
section 70 deals with power to 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
respondent to invoke the power under section 70 of the CGST Act

In Favour of
Respondent

-G.K. Trading Co. v.
Union of India [2021]
126 taxmann.com
211/51 GSTL 288
(All.)
-RCI Industries and
Technologies Ltd. v.
Commissioners
DGST Delhi [2021]
123 taxmann.com
342/84 GST 636/46
GSTL 123 (Delhi).
-Dadhichi Iron and
Steel (P.) Ltd. v.
Chhattisgarh GST
[2020] 116
taxmann.com 334/80
GST 167/35 GSTL 4
(Chhattisgarh)

3

Summon issued
by State Authority and by
DGGST

Authority and by
DGGST Authority and by
DGGST

It was contended by the petitioner that once Deputy Commissioner (SIB), Ghaziabad,
has conducted a survey of the business premises of the petitioner on 30-5-2018 and is investigating in the matter pursuant to the aforesaid survey, no inquiry can be initiated
or summon can be issued by the DGGSTI Meerut Zonal Unit, Meerut under section
70 of the C.G.S.T. Act against the petitioner even if basis of material of
inquiry/investigation by them may be different. In other words, the State Authority may
investigate/inquire in all the matters pertaining to the business of the petitioner and,
therefore, the summons in the matter of inquiry issued by the Central Authority is barred
by the provisions of section 6(2)(b) of the C.G.S.T. Act.
It was held by the High Court that the word "proceedings" used in Section 6(2)(b) is qualified
by the words "subject-matter" which indicate an adjudication process/proceedings on the
same cause of action and for the same dispute, which may be proceedings relating to
assessment, audit, demands and recovery and offences and penalties etc. It was further
pointed out that these proceedings are subsequent to inquiry under section 70 of the CGST
Act and the words "in any inquiry" are referable to the provisions under Chapter XIV viz.,
sections 67, 68, 69, 71 and 72. Thus, it was held that the proper officer may invoke power
under section 70 in any inquiry and the prohibition under section 6(2)(b) shall come into
play when any proceeding on the same subject-matter had already been initiated by a
proper officer under the State Act. Therefore, the contention raised by the appellant stating
that in issuance 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. Thus, the
key words occurring in both the provisions viz., "in any inquiry" and "proceedings on the
same-subject matter" indicate the crucial difference between these two provisions.

In Favour of
Respondent

4

Summon issued
by State
Authorities
stayed pending
the proceedings
before Central
Authorities

Raj Metal Industries v. Union
of India [2021] 127
taxmann.com 546 (Calcutta)
Dated-24-03-2021

The High Court stayed the proceedings initiated by summons issued on October 19,
2020 by the State GST which prima facie, in the opinion of the High Court were in violation
of Section 6(2)(b) of the WBGST Act since the proceedings were pending before the
Central GST Authorities.

In Favour of
Petitioner

-Liberty Oil
Mills v. Union of
India [1984] 3 SCC
465
-Ballabh Das v. Dr.
Madanlal [1970] 1
SCC 761

5

Show Cause
Notice issued by
State Authority
for Illegal
availment of ITC
and subsequent
commencement
of proceedings by DGGSTI on
same matter 

Dadhichi Iron and Steel (P.)
Ltd. v. Chhattisgarh GST
[2020] 116 taxmann.com 334
(Chhattisgarh)
Dated 25-02-2020

It was alleged that once a show cause notice proceeding have been initiated and are
pending before the concerned authorities under the SGST, then DGGSTI could not
have issued or initiated another investigation or proceeding in-respect of the same
subject matter, which otherwise is not permissible under the provisions of Section
6(2)(1)(b).
The High Court held that the initial issuance of the show cause notice and the proceedings
drawn were in respect of the intrastate transactions made by the petitioner, whereas subsequent to a secret information being received and further investigation being made,
particularly in the course of a raid, which was conducted at the premises of the petitionerestablishment and other related premises, it was revealed that the magnitude of the offence
committed by the petitioner-establishment was far more grave and serious. It was in the
course of raid found that the petitioner had been making false and bogus transactions and
has illegally availed ineligible ITC credits. The magnitude of which detected by now is
approximately Rs. 60 crores and with further investigation the amount is likely to increase
manifold. The High Court thus did not find any substance in the arguments of the petitioner,
when petitioner contended that the investigation and the proceedings now initiated is one,
which hit by section 6(2)(1)(b) of the CGST Act of 2017.

In Favour of
Respondent

6

SCN issued by
DGGSTI and
investigation
commenced by
State Authority

RCI
Industries and Technologies
Ltd. v. Commissioner
DGST, Delhi [2021] 123
taxmann.com 342 (Delhi)
Dated-07-01-2021

The Primary ground of contention by the Petitioner was of parallel investigation and the
contention is borne out of the notice dated 30th September, 2020, whereby the documents
for the period of 2017-18 to 2020-21 were requisitioned by State GST Authority. It was
contended by the Petitioner that since DGGI has issued a show-cause notice under
section 74 of the CGST Act, for the years 2017-18 and 2018-19, then by virtue of
Section 6 of CGST Act, State GST authorities cannot carry out the investigation for
the said period.
The High Court observed that the request in the notice dated 30th September, 2020
cannot ipso facto lead to the conclusion that there is a parallel investigation for the same
period by both the Central and State Authorities. The High Court also observed that in the
event the notice issued by the State authorities pertains to a period which is covered by
the investigation carried out by the Central GST authorities, the Petitioner can take
recourse to the appropriate remedies in that regard.
The High Court held that if an officer of the Central GST initiates intelligence- based
enforcement action against a taxpayer administratively assigned to State GST, the officers
of the former would not transfer the said case to their counterparts in the latter department
and they would themselves take the case to its logical conclusion. The revenue would be
bound by Letter Dated 5-10-2018 and letter issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes
and Customs being No. CBEC-20/10/07/2019-GST dated 22th June, 2020 and high court
reiterated that in case the action of the State and Central Authorities is overlapping, the
Petitioner would be at liberty to take action to impugn the same in accordance with law

In Favour of
Respondent

7

Simultaneous
Proceedings by
State and Central
Authorities

Sonam Berlia v. State of
Odisha MANU/OR/0306/2021
Dated 23-03-2021

Petitioner's business premises was impounded by the DGGSTI and a search was
undertaken thereof. During the course of search records, documents were seized and
summons were issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act on various dates by
DGGSTI. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued by the Additional CT and GST Officer, Sambalpur- I Circle (SGST) wherein Petitioner was asked to pay OGST,
CGST, interest, penalty to the tune of Rs.3,78,68,262.08 on ITC wrongly availed. The
petitioner submitted that since the Senior Intelligence Officer of the DGGSTI, Bhubaneswar
has seized all the documents and issued summons pursuant to which the Petitioner was
appearing there from time to time, the proceedings initiated by State GST should be kept
in abeyance till such time of proceedings before the DGGSTI concluded. Despite the above
request, State GST Officer proceeded to pass an order under Section 74 of the OGST Act
requiring the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,74,74,953.98 towards OGST, CGST, interest,
penalty. The State Authorities in their reply did not dispute the circular dated 5th October,
2018 but claim not to have known that the Central tax authority was seized of the matter.
The High Court observed that period of enquiry as far as Central tax authority is concerned
is from July, 2017 to September, 2018 whereas State Authority has issued a show cause
notice specific for April, 2018 and, therefore, there is also an overlapping of the periods.
Therefore, the High Court quashed the show cause notice and the impugned order issued
by the State Authority and directed that till the conclusion of the proceedings initiated
against the Petitioner by the DGGSTI, no coercive action be taken against the Petitioner
by State GST Authority.

In Favour of
Petitioner

8

Concurrent
Proceedings of
investigation and
Audit

Om Sakthi Construction v.
Assistant Commissioner
[2023] 147 taxmann.com 434
(Madras)
Dated-06-01-2023

In the present matter, Inspection and seizure of documents was on 16-3-2020, the first
impugned notice under Section 65 is dated 30-8-2022, 'show cause notice' based on
inspection was issued on dated 18-10-2022, reply to the SCN is dated 22-11-2022, second
and third impugned notices are dated 23-11-2022 and 27-12-2022.
The High Court held that here is nothing to demonstrate that when the audit under section
65 has been kick started by way of a notice, thereafter show cause notice under section
74 is impermissible.

In Favour of
Respondent

-R.P. Buildcon (P.)
Ltd. v.
Superintendent,
CGST & C.Ex. [2022]
144 taxmann.com
108/[2023] (Cal.)
-Sonam Berlia v.
State of Odisha
MANU/OR/0306/2021

9

Simultaneous
Existence of
Audit and
Summons

Suresh Kumar P.P. v.
Deputy Director, Directorate
General of GST
Intelligence (DGGI) [2020]
120 taxmann.com 173
(Kerala)
Dated-14-08-2020

GST Authorities initiated the search and seizure proceedings against Managing Director
and Director of Media Company. Pursuant to such proceedings summons u/s 70 were
issued. Thereafter, notice for audit under section 65 of CGST Act was also issued.
Various documents were seized vide Order of Seizure dated 09.06.2020. The petitioner
prayed for relief from such enquiry proceedings.
Petition was dismissed by holding that auditing of books as well as order of seizure of
documents would help the department in co-relating the entries in the documents and at
the time of auditing of the account. The procedure for further actions is contained in Chapter
15 of CGST Act. Therefore, it would be too premature to comment upon the act of the respondents and cannot be said to be against the provisions of the statute or misuse,
warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
SLP Filed before Supreme Court in the matter has been dismissed. Suresh Kumar P. P.
v. Deputy Director, Directorate General Of GST Intelligence (DGGI) [2021] 125
taxmann.com 61 (SC)

In Favour of
Respondent

10

Proceedings
initiated by Audit,
Investigation and
Jurisdictional
Officer
simultaneously
for same years

R. P. Buildcon (P.) Ltd. v.
Superintendent, CGST &
Central Excise [2022] 144
taxmann.com 108 (Calcutta)
Dated 30-09-2022

In the present matter, three wings of the same department are proceeding against the
appellants for the very same period, i.e. financial years 2017- 2018, 2018-2019 and
2019-2020. The first of the department which had taken action was the Audit
Commissionerate, which had issued notice under section 65 of the CGST Act, 2017 dated
9th November, 2021. It is submitted that the appellants had furnished the details as called
for in the said notice and also responded to the intimation dated 5th January, 2022/6th
January, 2022for conducting GST audit. In the meantime, the other two wings of the
department, viz. Anti Evasion wing as well as the Range Office have also proceeded
against the appellants by issuing notices for the very same period for which audit
proceedings under section 65 of the Act has already commenced. Revenue in its reply
stated that the three wings of the department are proceeding against the appellants
because the Range office was not aware about the proceedings initiated by the Audit
Commissionerate and the Anti Evasion also was not aware of the same.
The High Court observed that it is not clear as to why in the present days of electronic
communications available in the department, such parallel proceedings can be conducted
by three wings of the same department for the very same period. Thus, it held that since
the audit proceedings under section 65 of the Act has already commenced, it is but
appropriate that the proceedings should be taken to the logical end. The proceedings
initiated by the Anti Evasion and Range Office for the very same period shall not be
proceeded with any further.

n Favour of
Petitioner

11

Transfer of
Proceedings
having common
link initiated by
Multiple
Authorities to
one single
authority

Indo International Tobacco
Ltd. v. Vivek Prasad,
Additional Director General
(DGGI) [2022] 134
taxmann.com 157 (Delhi)
Dated-11-01-2022

The investigations were initiated by various jurisdictional authorities against different
entities. As contended by the respondents, as common thread were allegedly found in
these investigations, the same have been transferred to DGGI, AZU to be brought
under one umbrella. We also find that in the CGST Act there is no prohibition to such
transfer. Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act has limited application and therefore, is not
applicable to the facts of the present petitions. Similarly, the Circular dated 5-10-2018 also
has no application to the facts of the present petitions. 

In Favour of
Respondent

Bhawani
Textiles v Additional
Director
General 2020 (35)
G.S.T.L. 36
Sureshbhai
Gadhecha v. State of
Gujarat [2020] 114
taxmann.com 478/79
GST 33

12

Show Cause
Notice issued on
same subject
matter by Central
and State
Authority

[2023] 148 taxmann.com 83
(Madras) VGN Projects
Estates (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant
Commissioner (State Taxes)
Dated-30-01-2023

It was alleged that a similar show cause notice has already been issued by the Central
Authority under CGST Act, 2017 on 29-7-2022 against the petitioner, involving the very
same defects. It was submitted by the authority that a detailed reply has not been sent by
the petitioner to the impugned show cause notice and for the similar defects for which
notice has been issued by the Central Authority, such defects will be omitted and action
shall be initiated in respect of the balance defects alone.
The High Court disposed of the petition stating that the limited relief that can be granted to
the petitioner is to permit them to file a detailed reply to the impugned show cause notice,
stating all their objections that have been raised in this Writ Petition including the objection
with regard to section 6(2)(b) of the TNGST Act, 2017 and on receipt of the said reply, a
direction can be issued to the respondents to consider the said reply on merits and in
accordance with law within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

In Favour of
Petitioner