M/S G.K.Trading Company v. Union Of India And 4 Others

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 2; GST statutory provision - Section 2(91); GST statutory provision - Section 4; GST statutory provision - Section 6; GST statutory provision - Section 6(2); GST statutory provision - Section 44; GST statutory provision - Section 66; GST statutory provision - Section 67; GST statutory provision - Section 68; GST statutory provision - Section 69; GST statutory provision - Section 70; GST statutory provision - Section 70(1)

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief:- (i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 3 and 4 not to proceed with any inquiry against the petitioner and to talk any coercive steps against the petitioner, in pursuance of the impugned summoned. (ii) To issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. (iii) To award costs of the petition to the petitioner. Submissions:- Reported disposition:
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

AFR Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 666 of 2020 Petitioner :- M/S G.K.Trading Company Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Praveen Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Ramesh Chandra Shukla Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C. B. Tripathi, learned special counsel for the Union of India. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief:- (i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 3 and 4 not to proceed with any inquiry against the petitioner and to talk any coercive steps against the petitioner, in pursuance of the impugned summoned.

(ii) To issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. (iii) To award costs of the petition to the petitioner. Submissions:- 3. Sri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits as under:- (i) The respondent no.5 has inspected the business premises of the petitioner on 30.05.2018, which was followed by a summon dated 02.06.2018 under Section 70 of the U.P. GST Act. Lastly, a summon dated 14.09.2020 was issued by the respondent no.5- Assistant Commissioner (SIB), Commercial Tax, Range-C, Ghaziabad under Section 70 of U.P. GST Act, requiring the petitioner to explain two input tax credit taken by him.

GST Act, 2017 prohibits initiation of a proceeding on the same set of facts. It does not prohibit inquiry by the authorities under U.P. Act or under Central Act. (ii) In Section 70 of CGST Act the word “Inquiry” has been used while in Section 6(2)(b) of U.P. GST Act, 2017 the words “ Proceeding” has been used. Thus Section 6 (2)(b) prohibits “Proceeding” and not “Inquiry”. In other words "Inquiry" has not been prohibited under Section 6(2)(b) of the U.P. GST. Act, 2017. (iii) Jurisdiction of the respondent nos. 2 and 5 under U.P. GST Act is only the State of U.P., while the jurisdiction under the Central Act, is whole of India.

(iv) The subject matter of inquiry by the respondent Nos 3/4 under the CGST Act is different or wider than the subject matter of inquiry by the respondent No. 5 under the U.P. GST Act. The inquiry by the respondent No.5 is confined only to some incriminating material found in the survey dated 30.05.2018 and the evidences of Input Tax Credit illegally taken by the petitioner on the basis of invoices of two alleged dealers. No such facts are indicated in the summon issued by the respondent Nos.3/4. Thus, even the inquiry is not on the same set of facts.

5. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties. Facts:- 6. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the petitioner had obtained registration in Form GSTREG-06 under the U.P. GST Act, 2017 and the Registration Rules, w.e.f. 01.11.2017 for trade in Iron Bars and Rods and Non-Alloy Steel etc. etc. On 30.05.2018, a survey was conducted by the respondent No.5 at the business premises of the petitioner in which no business activity was found. Consequently, the respondent No.5 (Deputy Commissioner, S.I.B.) issued a summon to the petitioner dated 02.06.2018 under Section 70 of the U.P. GST Act requiring him to submit details of purchases and sales, list of buyers and sellers and certain other documents.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

Financial year 2017-18 and 2018-19. However, the petitioner has not submitted any information. Therefore, the respondent No.3 again issued a summon dated 26.08.2020 to the petitioner under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 requiring him to tender statement, give evidence and produce copies of purchase and sales ledgers since July, 2017 till date. It appears that pursuant to the aforesaid summon, the petitioner neither appeared before the respondent No.4 nor submitted any details and instead merely wrote a letter dated 11.09.2020 that detail inquiry is being conducted by the respondent No.5. Now, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for the relief as afore-quoted. Discussion and Findings:- 8.

(3) Any proceedings for rectification, appeal and revision, wherever applicable, of any order passed by an officer appointed under this Act shall not lie before an officer appointed under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act. 9. Crux of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once, the respondent No.5 [Deputy Commissioner (SIB), Ghaziabad], has conducted a survey of the business premises of the petitioner on 30.05.2018 and is investigating in the matter pursuant to the aforesaid survey, no inquiry can be initiated or summon can be issued by the respondent No.4 under Section 70 of the C.G.S.T.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment does not separately label the respondent’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

2017, requiring the petitioner to tender his statement in the inquiry. The aforesaid summon was followed by summons dated 26.08.2019 and 26.08.2020. (iii) Once inquiry has been initiated by the respondent no.5 under U.P. GST Act, the respondent nos. 3 and 4 cannot initiate any proceeding in view of the provisions of Section 6 (2) (b) of U.P. GST Act, 2017. (iv) Since inquiry has already been initiated by the respondent no.5, therefore, the respondent nos. 3 and 4 cannot initiate any inquiry against the petitioner in view of the provisions of Section 6(2)(b) of U.P. GST Act, 2017. 4. Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned special counsel for the State-respondents submits as under:- (i) Section 6 (2) (b) of U.P.

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 respondent No.4 is barred by the provisions of Section 6(2)(b) of the C.G.S.T. Act. Inquiry under Section 70 10. The words “subject-matter”, “proceedings” and “inquiry” have not been defined either under the State G.S.T. Act or the Union Territory G.S.T. Act or the C.G.S.T. Act. Therefore, these words have to be interpreted in the context of the aforesaid Acts. The word “inquiry” in Section 70 has a special connotation and a specific purpose to summon any person whose attendance may be considered necessary by the proper officer either to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing.

Therefore, proper officer under the U.P.G.S.T. Act or the C.G.S.T. Act may invoke power under Section 70 in any inquiry. Prohibition of Section 6(2)(b) of the C.G.S.T. Act shall come into play only when any proceeding on the same subject-matter has already been initiated by a proper officer under the U.P.G.S.T. Act. 18. Thus, the words “any proceeding” on the same “subject-matter” used in Section 6(2)(b) of the Act, which is subject to conditions specified in the notification issued under sub-Section (1); means any proceeding on the same cause of action and for the same dispute involving some adjudication proceedings which may include assessment proceedings, proceedings for penalties etc., proceedings for demands and recovery under Sections 73 and 74 etc.

Operative decision and relief

(iii) Section 6(2)(b) of the C.G.S.T. Act prohibits a proper officer under the Act to initiate any proceeding on a subject-matter where on the same subject-mat - ter proceeding by a proper officer under the U.P.G.S.T. Act has been initiated. (iv) Facts briefly noted in paras-6 and 7 above, would disclose that there is no proceeding by a proper officer against the petitioner on the same subject-matter referable to Section 6(2)(b) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act. It is merely an inquiry by a proper officer under Section 70 of the C.G.S.T. Act. 20. For all the reasons afore-stated, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 2.12.2020 T.S./NLY

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with M/S G.K.Trading Company v. Union Of India And 4 Others concerns issue and context: this writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief:- (i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 3 and 4 not to proceed with any inquiry against the petitioner and to talk any coercive steps against the petitioner, in pursuance of the impugned summoned. (ii) to issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which the hon’ble court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. (iii) to award costs of the petition to the petitioner. submissions:- reported disposition: The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in WRIT TAX No. - 666 of 2020.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Disposed” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: Issue and context: This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief:- (i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 3 and 4 not to proceed with any inquiry against the petitioner and to talk any coercive steps against the petitioner, in pursuance of the impugned summoned. (ii) To issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. (iii) To award costs of the petition to the petitioner. Submissions:- Reported disposition: Its practical value lies in the way the Allahabad High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 2; GST statutory provision - Section 2(91); GST statutory provision - Section 4; GST statutory provision - Section 6; GST statutory provision - Section 6(2); GST statutory provision - Section 44; GST statutory provision - Section 66; GST statutory provision - Section 67; GST statutory provision - Section 68; GST statutory provision - Section 69; GST statutory provision - Section 70; GST statutory provision - Section 70(1)—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of GST statutory provision - Section 2; GST statutory provision - Section 2(91); GST statutory provision - Section 4; GST statutory provision - Section 6; GST statutory provision - Section 6(2); GST statutory provision - Section 44; GST statutory provision - Section 66; GST statutory provision - Section 67; GST statutory provision - Section 68; GST statutory provision - Section 69; GST statutory provision - Section 70; GST statutory provision - Section 70(1) and the decision date 2020-12-02; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is M/S G.K.Trading Company v. Union Of India And 4 Others, the proceeding is WRIT TAX No. - 666 of 2020, and the decision is dated 2020-12-02. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.; Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with GST statutory provision - Section 2; GST statutory provision - Section 2(91); GST statutory provision - Section 4; GST statutory provision - Section 6; GST statutory provision - Section 6(2); GST statutory provision - Section 44; GST statutory provision - Section 66; GST statutory provision - Section 67; GST statutory provision - Section 68; GST statutory provision - Section 69; GST statutory provision - Section 70; GST statutory provision - Section 70(1). The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Disposed. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_SUBSEQUENT_TREATMENT_CHECK_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• GST statutory provision - Section 2 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 2(91) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 4 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 6 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 6(2) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 44 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 66 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 67 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 68 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 69 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 70 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 70(1) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE v. GIRISH SACHDEVA — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• M/s Power Line Air Express v. Principal Commissioner of CGST and Others — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• M/s SA Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Union of India and Others — Allahabad High Court · Disposed
• CGST, Delhi West v. Vishal Goyal — Delhi High Court · Disposed

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 692 judgments
• Explore Search, Summons & Arrest

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_EXACT_SANITIZED_MIRROR · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY