The Guwahati High Court observed that the two parallel proceedings in respect of same period not permissible under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act).
An authority under the SGST Act issued a Demand–cum–Show Cause Notice under Section 73 of the SGST Act asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the amount indicated therein shall not be demanded and recovered from the petitioner-assessee for the Financial Year :- 2017-2018. An Authority under the CGST Act had thereafter, issued a Demand–cum–Show Cause Notice also under Section 73 of the CGST Act asking the petitioner as to why the amount indicated therein shall not be demanded and recovered from the petitioner-assessee for the Financial Years : 2017-2018, 2018-2019 & 2019-2020.
Both the notices had alleged that during the said period, the petitioner-assessee availed and utilized Input Tax Credit [ITC] for the amounts, indicated therein, which were inadmissible in terms of Section 16[4] of the CGST Act/SGST Act. Pursuant to the Show Cause Notice, the authority under the CGST Act has passed an Order-in-Original. Subsequently, the authority under the SGST Act has passed an Order-in-Original.
It was the contention of the writ petition that two parallel proceedings in respect of the same period, that is, 2017-2018 is not permissible under the provisions of Section 6 of the CGST Act, 2017 and SGST Act, 2017.
A Single Bench of Justice Manish Choudhury observed that “Having regard to the provisions contained in Section 6 of the CGST/SGST Act, more particularly, Section 6[2] which inter alia indicates that once a proceeding is initiated either of the above two Acts, another proceeding for the same period under the other Act is not to be initiated, the operation of the Order-in-Original passed by the respondent no. 3 shall remain suspended till the returnable date.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
