Enquiries by Central Authority under GST cannot be restricted due to pendency of proceedings before the State Authority

Enquiries by Central Authority under GST cannot be restricted due to pendency of proceedings before the State Authority In Kuppan Gounder P.G. Natara…

Enquiries by Central Authority under GST cannot be restricted due to pendency of proceedings before the State Authority
In Kuppan Gounder P.G. Natarajan v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence and others [TS-400-HC(MAD)-2021-GST decided on July 29, 2021], Kuppan Gounder P.G. Natarajan (“the Petitioner”) filed a writ petition challenging the summons issued by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (“the Respondents”) u/s 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”) on the ground that summons by the Revenue were issued while proceedings from a notice on intimation of discrepancies in the return were already initiated by the State Authorities, thereby going against Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.
The Hon’ble High Court of Madras noted that it needs to be established that subject matter is one and the same and that mere pendency of proceedings before the State authorities is not a ground to restrain the Central authorities from issuing summons and conduct investigation regarding certain allegations.
Further observed that a detailed adjudication cannot be conducted by the High Court in a writ proceeding to analyse the business intricacies, tax paid etc., as it would lead to errors and omissions. The same should be scrutinised by the Department itself.
Granting the Petitioner, the liberty to defend his case by responding to the summons and producing all relevant documents, evidences, statements, etc., and the respondents to investigate the matter in accordance with the procedure, the court thereby dismissed the writ petition.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
About Author

A2ZBimal Jain
Chartered Accountant
CA Bimal Jain is a Member of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India since May 1994 and Member of Institute of Company Secretaries of India since December 2006 along with a Bachelors degree in Law. Also, he is a Qualified SAP - FI/CO Consultant and has more than 21 years of experience in Indirect Taxation and specializes in all aspects of Service Tax, Value Added Tax (VAT)/ Central Sales Tax (CST), Central Excise, Customs, Foreign Trade Policy (FTP), Special Economic Zone (SEZ), Export Oriented Unit (EOU), Export-Import Laws and well acquainted with the concept and impact of way forward Goods and Services tax (GST).
A2Z Taxcorp LLP
Delhi, Delhi, India
468My Recent Articles
- Actions taken by the department during enquiry need not necessarily be termed as harassment
- Who are liable to generate e-invoice w.e.f October 1, 2022
- Personal penalty cannot be imposed on the Chairman of the Company for failure in ensuring proper accounting of the goods
- Stayed the order of cancellation of GST Registration of the assessee for continuing the trading activities
- Can CA be arrested- Section 69 vs Section 132 of the CGST Act
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts








