TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 223
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) (PER M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, C.J.) Heard Mr. Bibhal Nandi Majumder, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Samrat Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ratan Datta, learned counsel for respondent No.6, Mr. Bidyut Majumder, learned Deputy SGI for respondents No. 1, 2, 5, 8 & 9 and Mr. P. Gautam, learned Senior Government Advocate for respondents No. 4 & 7. 2. Perused the pleadings and Counter Affidavits of the parties. Reliefs sought for in the Writ Petition: 3. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged certain notifications (A-7, 9 and 10) issued by the Govt. of India, Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice, bearing Reference No: GEXCOM/ADJN/GST/3073/2024-ADJN-O/COMMR-CGST-AGARTALA, dt.22.07.2024 (Annexure-56), issued by the Ld. Joint Commissioner, Central GST Commissionerate, Agartala (Respondent No. 5) to the Petitioner, under Section 74(1) of the CGST/TSGST Act and Order-in-Original No. 12/GST/JC(HQRS)/2024-25, dt.03.02.2025 (Annexure-78), passed by the Ld. Joint Commissioner, Central GST Commissionerate, Agartala etc. 4. However as regards the challenge to the notifications issued by the Government of India vide Annexures 7....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....17, go into this aspect of excess availment of ITC because the subject matter is already covered in the show cause notices issued by SGST authorities to the petitioner referred to supra. Submission of counsel for respondents: 11. Counsel for the respondents however contends that as regards the financial year 2017-18, the respondent No. 5 cannot be said to be wrong in issuing the show cause notice because of a notification No.06/2020 dt.03.02.2020 [Annexure-7] issued under Section 168A of the Act of 2017. He also supported the action of respondent No. 5 in including the financial years 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 in the said show cause notice. Consideration by the Court: 12. We shall first deal with the plea of petitioner regarding the validity of action of respondent No. 5 in initiating proceedings for the year 2017-18. 13. A reading of the notification No.06/2020 dt.03.02.2020 [Annexure-7] indicates that the Central Government had issued the said notification on the recommendation of the GST Council and in the said notification, the time limit for furnishing of the annual return for the period 2017-18 was extended up to 07.02.2020 for the State of Tripura. 14. In o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es & Customs, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Section 74(1) of the Act of 2017 can be invoked only in cases where there is a fraud or willful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax on the part of a taxpayer, and there is no such allegation contained in the notice dt.22.03.2021 issued by the CGST authorities, and for the first time such allegation was made only in the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dt.22.07.2024 issued by the fifth respondent. 23. So as far as financial year 2017-18 is concerned, the action of the respondent No. 5 in issuing the said show cause notice and passing the impugned order in original on 03.02.2025 is without jurisdiction and contrary to the Act. 24. Regarding 2018-19 and 2019-20, it is admitted by the respondents in the Counter Affidavit at para 25 that Section 6(2)(b) of the Act of 2017 prohibits initiation of parallel proceedings when proceedings on the same subject matter have already been initiated by the State GST authorities, and that the identity of subject matter is a mandatory pre-condition for invoking the statutory bar. 25. This is also the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in M/s Armour ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lleged offence by the assessee on the same facts, and secondly, if the demand or relief sought is identical." (emphasis supplied) 26. As rightly contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, in the notices issued by SGST authorities on 24.02.2025 [Vol-VII at Page 1092-1095], there is mention about mismatches between ITC availed in Electronic Credit Ledger than declared in annual return, which proceedings were admittedly dropped on 08.07.2025 by SGST authorities. 27. But in the show cause notice issued on 22.07.2024 by the respondent No. 5, he has also included the aspect of excess availment of ITC for 2018-19 and 2019-20, though it is the subject matter of the show cause notices and proceedings already issued by the SGST authorities. 28. In our opinion, in view of the bar contained in Section 6(2)(b) of the Act, the respondent No. 5 could not have initiated proceedings into this aspect of excess availment of ITC for these two financial years which aspect/subject matter is already covered in the show cause notices issued by the SGST authorities to the petitioner as mentioned above. So to that extent his show cause notice and impugned order are without jur....