TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 751
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the petitioner is challenging the show cause notice dated 28 June 2025 on the ground that the issue raised in this show cause notice stands covered by orders dated 22 April 2024 and 25 May 2025 issued by the State GST authorities. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in terms of section 6 of the CGST Act, once, the Central Government authorities have already initiated proceedings, the State GST official cannot initiate proceedings regarding the same subject matter. He submits that in this case, the said proceedings have already concluded by the above two orders. Therefore, the issuance of the impugned show cause notice by the central authorities is wholly without jurisdiction. 4. On behalf of the first and second respond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Authorities, as well as those now proposed by the Central Authorities, will have to be examined. 9. Considering the factual elements involved, we cannot agree that the impugned show cause notice is "wholly without jurisdiction". Such a conclusion, if at all, will have to await examination of the factual matters and the scope of the concluded and the proposed proceedings. 10. One of the orders upon which the petitioner relied appears to have been made in the audit proceedings. The scope of such an order under the provisions of Section 6 of the CGST Act will also have to be examined. The precise status of the Petitioner will also have to be determined, now that the respondents do not admit that the Petitioner is a government authority ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice, more so, when, against the final orders, an appeal lies to the Supreme Court. The Court held that in such circumstances, the Petitioner should be directed to respond to the show cause notices by placing all material in support of his stand so that the authority which has issued the show cause notice can examine the same and decide the issue. 14. In Special Director V. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse (2004) 3 SCC 440, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has explained that unless the show cause notice which is impugned before the High Court was 'totally non-est in the eyes of the law' or there was "an absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority even to investigate the facts", writ petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking and as a matter ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it or circumvent statutory procedures." It is only when statutory remedies are entirely unsuitable to address extraordinary situations-for instance, when the very validity of the statute's vires is in question or when private or public wrongs are inseparably intertwined and require prevention of public injury and the vindication of public justice-that recourse to Article 226 of the Constitution may be justified; such exceptional jurisdiction can be invoked. However, even then, the Court must have substantial and compelling reasons to bypass the statutory alternative remedy. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that, clearly, matters involving revenue, where statutory remedies are available, do not fall under such exceptional circu....