Court directs respondent to address objections before proceeding on show cause notice

The court disposed of the petition by directing respondent No.2 to address and decide the objections raised by the petitioner before proceeding on the show cause notice. The court upheld the petitioner's right to challenge the jurisdiction of the proper officer and emphasized respondent No.2's obligation to act in accordance with the law in considering the objections.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to show cause notice and recovery notices under MPGST Act and CGST Act, jurisdiction of proper officer, parallel proceedings initiated by different officers, consideration of objections before proper officer, disposal of petition.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice and recovery notices issued by different officers under the MPGST Act and CGST Act. The petitioner argued that as per Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, no proceedings can be initiated by another proper officer on the same subject matter if one officer has already initiated proceedings. The petitioner had filed appeals against the assessment orders before the appellate authority, which were still pending, when the show cause notice was issued by a different officer for the same interest on delayed payment. The contention was that the proper officer under the MPGST Act had already assumed jurisdiction, and therefore, the parallel proceedings initiated by the respondent No.2 were not valid.

The respondent No.2 contended that the writ petition against the show cause notice should not be entertained, and the petitioner should submit a reply to the notice, raising objections before the proper officer for consideration and decision in accordance with the law. The petitioner informed the court that a reply had been filed, but no decision had been taken by the respondent No.2 on that reply. The court directed the respondent No.2 to first address and decide the objections raised by the petitioner before proceeding further on the show cause notice. The petitioner was given the opportunity to file a reply to the show cause notice, raising the objection regarding the jurisdiction issue.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the petition with the observation that the respondent No.2 must address and decide the objections raised by the petitioner before taking further action on the show cause notice. The court upheld the petitioner's right to raise objections regarding the jurisdiction of the proper officer and emphasized the need for the respondent No.2 to act in accordance with the law while considering the objections raised by the petitioner.

---