ORDER

The petitioner has challenged the impugned Summons dated 18.10.2022 issued by the fifth respondent under Section 70 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Hereinafter referred to as TNGST Act, 2017) and under Section 70 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Hereinafter referred to as CGST Act, 2017).

2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned Summons on the ground that both the Central and State Authorities do not have powers to initiate proceedings against the petitioner simultaneously under the respective GST Acts with regard to the same subject matter. The petitioner contends that he is already facing proceedings initiated by the Central Authority and therefore, the question of the State Authority viz., the fifth respondent, initiating proceedings against the petitioner will not arise as per Section 6(2)(b) of the GST Act, 2017.

3. The petitioner has also submitted a reply to the impugned Summons issued by the fifth respondent on 27.10.2022. However, the petitioner apprehends that even without communicating the outcome of the decision taken by the fifth respondent pursuant to the reply dated 27.10.2022, the respondents are, on a day to day basis, threatening the petitioner and they have been calling upon the petitioner to come for personal hearing.

4. Admittedly, no final decision has been taken by the fifth respondent to initiate action against the petitioner under the TNGST Act, 2017. The petitioner has only been called upon to produce documents under the impugned Summons dated 18.10.2022 and he has also been called to come for personal hearing. Admittedly, the petitioner has not participated in the personal hearing and instead he has chosen to file this Writ Petition, challenging the impugned Summons. Necessarily, to substantiate his defence that he cannot be once again prosecuted by the State Authority under the TNGST Act, 2017, he has to participate in the enquiry to be conducted by the fifth respondent and only then it can be ascertained whether the proceedings initiated by the Central and State Authority are one and the same involving the same subject matter. Truth will come out only when the petitioner appears before the respondent pursuant to the Summons received by him and not otherwise. If it is the same subject matter, the State Authority cannot prosecute the petitioner once again as the Central Authority has already initiated action against the petitioner in respect of the very same subject matter. The petitioner has sent a detailed reply on 27.10.2022 to the impugned Summons dated 18.10.2022 and even without allowing the same to be considered by the fifth respondent on merits, the petitioner has approached this Court prematurely by filing this Writ Petition.

5. As observed earlier, necessarily, the petitioner will have to participate in the personal hearing and state all his objections with regard to the action launched by the State Authority under the TNGST Act, 2017. Unless and until the petitioner participates in the impugned proceedings viz., the impugned Summons dated 18.10.2022, truth cannot be unearthed with regard to the petitioner’s contentions.

6. Since the petitioner did not participate in the personal hearing afforded to him as per the impugned Summons, this Court deems it fit to grant one more opportunity for the petitioner to participate in the personal hearing. The personal hearing is fixed by this Court on 16.02.2023 and on that date, he has to appear before the fifth respondent and state all his objections with regard to the impugned Summons.

7. For the foregoing reasons, this Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to appear before the fifth respondent on 16.02.2023 at 10:30 a.m. without fail and state all his objections in line with his reply dated 27.10.2022 sent to the impugned Summons and the fifth respondent shall consider the petitioner’s objections on merits and in accordance with law and thereafter, decide as to whether the petitioner can be prosecuted once again under the TNGST Act, 2017 when the Central Authority has already prosecuted him under the CGST Act, 2017. No Costs. Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.