Delhi High Court
For revenue
Topic
Proper officer, cross-empowerment and parallel proceedings.
4 rulings found
Delhi High Court
Where DGGI initiated proceedings for ITC fraud against multiple noticees including petitioner while a separate proceeding was initiated by State GST officer against petitioner for denial of ITC due to non-payment of tax by supplier, bar on parallel proceedings did not apply as proceedings addressed distinct subject matters; mere commonality in petitioner, period, or transactions was insufficient to constitute identity of subject matter. GST: In case of separate proceedings under central and state Act, subsequent conclusion of DGGI proceedings did not extinguish independent demand raised by State GST officer on separate statutory grounds; absence of recovery in DGGI proceedings did not retrospectively invalidate separate proceedings concerning short payment and ITC ineligibility. GST: In case of separate proceedings under central and state Act, where petitioner was only a co-noticee in DGGI proceedings and no penalty, tax, or interest was imposed on petitioner in that matter, proceedings by State GST officer for ame act would not attract bar against penalty, as protection applies only if prior penalty on petitioner for same act is established and shown
Delhi High Court
Where assessee registered under CGST and SGST claimed ITC on invoices from a supplier and State invoked Section 73 while Central authorities invoked Section 74, Central action based on distinct intelligence regarding bogus transactions was not barred by Section 6(2)(b) as two proceedings concerned different subject matter based on distinct investigative material; commonality of assessee and period or ITC amount was insufficient when assessee had different GSTINs
Gujarat High Court
Where State GST officer intercepted consignment in transit, found no quantity discrepancy but initiated penalty proceedings alleging reuse of documents, State GST officers were competent to act as proper officers under IGST Act where State Commissioner’s order designated them under State GST law; no separate Central notification was required. GST: Orders passed by State GST proper officers while exercising IGST powers were appealable before the State appellate authority by virtue of cross-empowerment; as an efficacious statutory remedy existed against confiscation and penalty orders, invocation of writ jurisdiction without exhausting appeal was impermissible
Karnataka High Court
Where state GST initiated inquiry against a scrap trader for discrepancies and during pendency, central GST authority commenced a wider investigation and state inquiry was formally transferred, in view of fact that there was no identical liability or overlapping action and designated central authority was competent to proceed, parallel proceedings were not impermissible GST: Where petitioner challenged legality of arrest alleging non-furnishing of written grounds and lack of intimation to relatives, but records showed arrest memo was served with acknowledgment and intimation was given per Guidelines of GST Investigation Wing dated 13-01-2025, arrest action conformed to statutory parameters