A Writ Petition was filed to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the State Tax Officer’s Summons and quashing the same, and further directing the State Tax Officer and The Commissioner of State Taxes to refrain from exercising any control over the petitioner in the guise of cross empowerment of Tax Authorities.
The Court observed that if it is the same subject matter, the State Authority cannot prosecute the petitioner, as the Central Government had already initiated action against the petitioner in respect of the same subject matter.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner was already facing proceedings initiated by the Central Authority and was also served a summons by the State Tax Officer. The petitioner also submitted a reply to the summons issued by the State Authority on October 27, 2012. However, even without communicating the outcome of the decision taken by the State Authority pursuant to the reply dated 27.10.2022, the respondents were, on a day-to-day basis, threatening the petitioner, and they have been calling upon the petitioner to come for a personal hearing.
But no final decision had been taken by the State Tax Officer to initiate action against the petitioner under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Act, 2017. The petitioner was only called upon to produce documents under the impugned summons dated 18.10.2022 and he was also called to come for a personal hearing. Admittedly, the petitioner did not participate in the personal hearing and instead chose to file this Writ Petition, challenging the impugned summons.
Observations of the Court:
The court held that to substantiate his defense that he cannot be once again prosecuted by the State Authority under the TNGST Act, 2017, he has to participate in the inquiry to be conducted by the State Authority, and only then can it be ascertained whether the proceedings initiated by the Central and State Authorities are one and the same and involve the same subject matter.
The Court observed that if it is the same subject matter, the State Authority cannot prosecute the petitioner, as the Central Government has already initiated action against the petitioner in respect of the same subject matter. The Court fixed a date for a personal hearing regarding the issue and directed the petitioner to state all his objections with regard to the impugned summons in that.
Decision of the Court:
The court disposed of the Writ Petition and directed the petitioner to appear before the State Authorities and state his objections, after that the State Authority after considering the objections would decide whether the petitioner can be prosecuted or not. The Petition was dismissed and closed with no costs.
Case Title: Tvl Metal Trade Incorporation vs the Special Secretary
Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Abdul Quddhose
Case No.: W.P.No.3033 of 2023 and W.M.P.No.3125 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Adithya Reddy.
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Sai Srujan Tayi
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source : https://www.needpix.com/photo/download/316642/taxes-tax-office-tax-return-form-income-tax-return-income-tax-wealth-finance-tax-evasion
