TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1364
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpetent adjudicating authority. 2. At the outset, it may be noted that although the Petitioner has referred to the impugned Order-in-Original as being dated 03.02.2025, the Order-in-Original placed on record bears the date 31.01.2025. The present judgment shall accordingly proceed on the basis that the impugned Order-in-Original was passed on 31.01.2025. 3. The issue which arises for consideration in the present Petition is whether the present Writ Petition ought to be entertained, particularly after the passing of the Order-in-Original dated 31.01.2025, when the Petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act against the said order, and whether the contentions raised by the Petitioner, including the objection under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, should be examined by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. FACTUAL MATRIX 4. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present Petition, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed. 5. The Petitioner is a partnership concern engaged in the business of manufacture and supply of printed material, including labels, stickers, bar-code stickers and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CGST Act, proposing, inter alia, recovery of allegedly wrongly availed ITC for the period July 2017 to 31st March 2024, together with applicable interest and penalty. The said notice was made answerable to the competent Central GST adjudicating authority. 11. The principal grievance of the Petitioner is that the proceedings initiated by the DGGI relate to the very same subject matter which had already been the subject of proceedings before the State GST authorities. According to the Petitioner, the initiation of proceedings under the CGST Act was, therefore, expressly barred by Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. 12. The present Writ Petition was instituted on 14.01.2025. On 23.01.2025, this Court issued notice, including on the application seeking interim relief. Since no order staying the adjudication proceedings had been passed, the Petitioner submitted an interim reply dated 30.01.2025 before the adjudicating authority and also informed the authority of the pendency of the present proceedings before this Court. 13. Thereafter, the competent Central GST adjudicating authority passed Order-in-Original No. 87/CGST WEST/GST/S GARG/ADC/2024-25 dated 31.01.2025, whereby, inter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 08.02.2024, which, according to learned counsel, require coordination between the Central and State tax authorities where both authorities are examining the same taxpayer and contemplate consideration of the feasibility of one authority pursuing the subject matters. It was submitted that, in the present case, there is nothing in the impugned Show Cause Notice to demonstrate compliance with the aforesaid guidelines despite the State GST authorities having already initiated proceedings in respect of the relevant period. 14.6. Further reliance was placed upon the decisions of various High Courts, including Toyota Kirloskar Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2024) 24 Centax 48 (Kar.), Rajesh Mittal v. Union of India, (2024) 16 Centax 28 (Gau.), as well as the orders passed by this Court in M/s Aastha Apparels Pvt. Ltd. v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence & Ors., W.P.(C) 16293/2024, to contend that parallel proceedings by the Central and State GST authorities in respect of the same subject matter are impermissible. 14.7. It was further submitted that the objection under Section 6(2)(b) goes to the very jurisdiction of the authority which issued the Show Cause Notice. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l relied upon and contraventions sought to be adjudicated are materially different. 15.6. It was further submitted that the distinction between the proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act is also material. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of this Court in M/s PEI Industries v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 7725/2026, decided on 29.05.2026, and upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate & Anr., 2025 INSC 982. 15.7. It was submitted that the departmental guidelines dated 08.02.2024 would also have to be considered in the context of the statutory scheme and the nature of the two proceedings. 15.8. It was lastly submitted that, since the Order-in-Original dated 31.01.2025 has already been passed, the Petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. It was contended that all grievances of the Petitioner, including the objection under Section 6(2)(b), can be raised before the competent appellate authority. ANALYSIS & FINDINGS 16. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and carefully perused the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her the two sets of proceedings concern the "same subject matter" within the meaning of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act would consequently require examination of the relevant proceedings, the allegations contained therein, the transactions and liabilities covered by them, and the material forming their respective foundations. 24. This Court is not inclined to undertake such an examination in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when the Order-in-Original dated 31.01.2025 has already been passed and a statutory appellate remedy is available to the Petitioner. 25. The objection raised by the Petitioner under Section 6(2)(b) is undoubtedly one of the grounds which can be urged before the competent appellate authority. The appellate authority would also be in a position to examine the challenge to the findings recorded in the Order-in-Original and the demand confirmed therein, in accordance with the statutory scheme. 26. It is, therefore, not necessary for this Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction, to express any opinion on whether the proceedings initiated by the State GST authorities and the DGGI/DZU are....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the Petitioner has raised a jurisdictional objection. However, in the facts of the present case, the jurisdictional objection is itself founded upon the applicability of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act and requires examination of the nature and scope of the earlier and subsequent proceedings. In view of the statutory remedy now available against the Order-in-Original, this Court considers it appropriate to leave the said issue open for consideration before the competent appellate authority. 35. Nothing stated in the present judgment shall, therefore, be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the Petitioner's objection under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act or on any other contention raised by either party. 36. The Petitioner shall be at liberty to urge all grounds available to it in law and on facts before the competent appellate authority, including the objection under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, the contention regarding the alleged overlap between the State GST and DGGI proceedings, the challenge to the factual and evidentiary basis of the demand, and all other grounds available against the Order-in-Original dated 31.01.2025. 37. The appellate a....