TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1122
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, quashing the proceedings initiated by the Respondents by invoking extended period of limitation under Section 74 of the CGST Act; (iii) In the alternative, to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the Ld. Respondent No. 1 to upload proper DRC-07 for each of the Financial Years on the GST portal and to decide the rectification applications on merits within a stipulated time-frame, considering the fact that demand already stands dropped by the State authorities for the said period on the same issue;" 2. At the outset, it may be noted that the Petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 03.12.2025 ['Impugned Order']. It is well settled that the existence of an alternative statutory remedy does not, in every case, constitute an absolute bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, where adjudication of the challenge requires examination of disputed facts and appreciation of the nature and scope of proceedings conducted by different statutory authorities, the Court would ordinarily be slow to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....025 and 19.11.2025. 10. An Order-in-Original dated 03.12.2025 was subsequently passed by the learned Additional Commissioner of CGST, Delhi South Commissionerate, creating a demand of Rs. 4,80,26,753/-(Rupees Four Crore Eighty Lakh Twenty-Seven Thousand Six Hundred Fifty-Three only), along with penalty. 11. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the aforesaid Order-in-Original, principally on the ground that the proceedings before the Central GST authorities were barred by Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, since proceedings on the same subject matter had already been initiated by the State GST authorities. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES 12. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the proceedings initiated by the State GST authorities in respect of FY 2020-21 concerned the very same issue of alleged excess availment of ITC which subsequently formed part of the proceedings before the Central GST authorities. 13. It is submitted that Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act expressly prohibits initiation of proceedings by a proper officer under the CGST Act where a proper officer under the State GST Act has already initiated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the earlier proceedings instituted by the State GST authorities. 21. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contention, it would be apposite to reproduce Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, which reads as under: "Section 6. Authorisation of officers of State tax or Union territory tax as proper officer in certain circumstances.- XXX (2) Subject to the conditions specified in the notification issued under sub-section (1),- XXX (b) where a proper officer under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act has initiated any proceedings on a subject matter, no proceedings shall be initiated by the proper officer under this Act on the same subject matter..." 22. A plain reading of the aforesaid statutory provision makes it evident that the provision is procedural in nature and its object is to prevent the initiation of parallel proceedings by the Central and State tax authorities in respect of the same subject matter and thereby avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting determinations. 23. The expression 'same subject matter' is central to the controversy raised by the Petitioner. The me....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner. Since the demand had already been confirmed in the earlier proceedings and the petitioner was already pursuing an appeal thereagainst, this Court found that the same demand could not be raised again in the subsequent proceedings and accordingly quashed the subsequent demand qua the petitioner. 28. The aforesaid decision, however, does not obviate the factual enquiry required in the present case. Unlike the proceedings considered in Alliance Polychem (supra), where the identity of the demand in the two proceedings was apparent from the record, the question in the present case is whether the proceedings initiated by the Central GST authorities, to the extent they relate to FY 2020-21, concern the same subject matter as the proceedings previously initiated by the State GST authorities. As noticed hereinabove, the two proceedings differ in their period, quantum and the material and allegations forming their respective bases. The applicability of Section 6(2)(b) must, therefore, be determined upon examination and comparison of the underlying proceedings and cannot be conclusively answered merely on the basis of the fact that both proceedings concern ITC for FY 2020-21. 29....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....absence of material establishing that the alleged oral objection was raised before and considered by the adjudicating authority are relevant circumstances while determining whether this Court ought to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in the first instance. The Petitioner has also not been able to demonstrate any prejudice occasioned to it on account of the alleged violation of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. 33. In any event, the determination of the applicability of Section 6(2)(b), in the facts of the present case, requires examination of the respective proceedings and their underlying record. The statutory appellate mechanism provides an efficacious forum for such examination, including consideration of the respective SCNs, the allegations and computations contained therein, the material relied upon, the order passed by the State GST authorities and the subsequent proceedings before the Central GST authorities. The Appellate Authority would, therefore, be in a position to determine whether the proceedings initiated by the Central GST authorities, to the extent they relate to FY 2020-21, were on the same subject matter as the proceedings previously initiated by the Sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2)(b) of the CGST Act to the facts of the case. The Appellate Authority shall consider all contentions raised by the Petitioner independently and in accordance with law, without being influenced by the observations contained herein. The observations made herein concerning the absence of an objection in the written reply, or the manner in which such objection is stated to have been raised during the adjudication proceedings, are confined to the question whether this Court ought to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction at this stage and shall not be treated as a finding on the merits of such objection before the Appellate Authority. 39. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that the Petitioner may face an issue of limitation in availing the statutory appellate remedy on account of the time spent prosecuting the present proceedings before this Court. 40. In this regard, it is observed that, in case the Petitioner files an appropriate application before the competent Appellate Authority under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking exclusion of the period during which the present Writ Petition remained pending bef....