Madras High court stated that little pendency of GST proceedings prior to the state council was not the reason to restrain the controlled central authorities from conducting an investigation.
The applicant Kuppan Gounder P.G. Natarajan has asked the problem in which the proper officer beneath the state goods and service tax act or the union territory GST act has made any proceedings on the case, there shall be no proceedings which can be initiated through the proper officer beneath the act on the similar subject.
Depending on the prohibitory clause Mr E.OM Prakash senior counsel had furnished the submission that notices for implying the discrepancies in the return post to some scrutiny which gets provided through the state authorities to the applicant on 17/12/2020 and the proceedings are in progress. While the central authorities are forced to wait till the resultant of the proceedings were initiate through the state council beneath the state goods and services tax act and these are summonses issued through the respondent is without the jurisdiction.
Mr.V.Sundareswaran, senior panel counsel seems on the grounds of the respondent disputed the contentions urged through the applicant via saying that the writ applicant has furnished 4 writ applicants and stalling the whole investigation process through one way or another and he shall not cooperating for the continuance and completion of the investigation steps towards IGST. It reveals that the state decision towards the investigation proceedings of the return furnished through the applicant and the summons are provided through the central head beneath section 70 of the act towards IGST. thus two are unconnected according to the procurement if the subject matter is identical then alone the proceedings are required to be kept reserved and not otherwise.
Justice SM Subramaniam specified that it is to be made that the subject matter is one and identical. Mere pendency of the proceedings prior to the state council is not the cause to restrain the central council to provide the summons and conductive investigations towards some assertion. Thus all these concerns need adjudication prior to the competent authority however if the summons is held in reserve. This shall paralyze the complete proceedings that are not needed however shall cause prejudice to the interest of the revenue in the same case,
“The petitioner is at liberty to respond to the summons by producing all relevant documents, evidence, statements, etc., and defend his case in the manner known to law. The respondent is also at liberty to proceed with the investigation by following the procedures as contemplated under the Statute and Rules, the court directed.”
