Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Sudip Chatterjee, challenged proceedings initiated by the CGST authority against him in WPA No.6081 of 2022 before the Calcutta High Court. His case was that the State GST authority had, for the very same transaction and the very same tax period, already initiated proceedings and passed a final adjudication order, pursuant to which tax and penalty had already been paid. On this basis, the petitioner contended that a bar under Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 operated against the CGST authority initiating a fresh proceeding on the identical subject-matter. The order records the appearance of counsel for the petitioner, for the Union of India, and for the State, and that the parties were heard. The available text of the order does not disclose the specific tax period, the amount of tax and penalty already paid, the nature of the impugned CGST proceeding, or the dates of either the State adjudication order or the impugned CGST action — these particulars are simply not set out in the order.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether initiation of proceedings by the CGST authority is barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 where the State GST authority has already adjudicated the same transaction for the same period and tax and penalty stand paid pursuant thereto.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The impugned CGST proceeding related to the very same transaction and the very same period already finally adjudicated by the State GST authority, with tax and penalty already paid pursuant to that adjudication.
  • Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 bars a proper officer under one Act from initiating proceedings on the same subject-matter once a proceeding has been initiated by a proper officer under the other Act.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Counsel for the Union of India and for the State appeared and were heard, but the order does not record the specific submissions made on their behalf on the applicability of Section 6(2)(b); the text of the order is silent on this point.

Court Order/Findings

  • The Court did not itself decide the Section 6(2)(b) maintainability question on merits.
  • Instead, it disposed of the writ petition by directing the adjudicating authority to first decide the issue of maintainability of the pending CGST proceeding, on the ground raised by the petitioner, in accordance with law.
  • The adjudicating authority was directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorised representative, within four weeks from communication of the order.
  • The petitioner was given liberty to raise all points on maintainability before the adjudicating authority.
  • Further proceedings by the adjudicating authority were made contingent on the outcome of the maintainability decision.

Important Clarification

  • Where a taxpayer raises a bar under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 against parallel proceedings by Central and State GST authorities on the same subject-matter, a writ court may decline to decide that cross-empowerment question itself and instead direct the adjudicating authority to decide it first, by a reasoned and speaking order after hearing the taxpayer.

Sections Involved

  • Section 6(2)(b), Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — bars a proper officer under the CGST Act from initiating proceedings on a subject-matter already taken up by a proper officer under the State/UT GST Act, and vice versa.

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of with directions, without a decision on merits either way. The Court did not rule on whether the Section 6(2)(b) bar in fact applied; it directed the adjudicating authority to decide the maintainability question afresh after hearing the petitioner, within four weeks, with further proceedings contingent on that outcome. This is a procedural rather than a substantive result — favourable to the Assessee only to the extent that his objection will now receive an express, reasoned ruling before the CGST proceeding continues.

Related Case Laws

No related case laws are available on this site at present.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court at Calcutta (Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction, Appellate Side)
  • Case No.: WPA No.6081 of 2022
  • Coram: Hon'ble Md. Nizamuddin, J.
  • Order Date: 19.04.2022

Link to Download the Order

Download the full judgment (PDF)

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.