TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1902
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hout jurisdiction in view of the proceedings earlier initiated by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence ["DGGI"] against the Petitioner and several other noticees. The Petitioner places reliance upon Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act to contend that two authorities could not have initiated parallel proceedings in respect of the same subject matter. 3. The substantive reliefs sought by the Petitioner, as contained in the Writ Petition, read as under: "A. Issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/order/direction against the respondent no 2, by quashing the show-cause notice dated 29.05.2024 as well as subsequent proceedings and declare the same as illegal, without jurisdiction and bad in law. AND B. Issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/order/direction against Order under section 73 of the CGST/DGST Act 2017dated 29.08.2024 vide reference no ZDO70824102713J is illegal, without jurisdiction and bad in law and declare invalid order. And/or C. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/order/direction to respondent no 2 to close the proceeding against the same subject matter already been adjudicated by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....overing the relevant transactions. According to the Petitioner, therefore, the initiation of proceedings by Respondent No. 2 was barred by Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. 11. Respondent No. 2, however, proceeded with the adjudication and passed the impugned order dated 29.08.2024. By the said order, Respondent No. 2 held that the Petitioner had not declared the correct tax liability and had also availed Input Tax Credit from taxpayers who had not discharged the corresponding tax liability on their outward supplies. On this basis, the benefit of ITC was denied with reference to Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act and a total liability of Rs.10,57,75,250/- was created against the Petitioner. 12. The Petitioner did not avail the statutory remedy of appeal against the aforesaid order within the prescribed period. Instead, the Petitioner states that it filed an application for rectification on 07.04.2025, reiterating its objection that the proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 2 were barred by Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. 13. In the meantime, the proceedings initiated pursuant to the Show Cause Notice issued by the DGGI against the forty-five noticees culminated in an Order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce the proceedings against the Petitioner pursuant to the DGGI Show Cause Notice stood concluded on account of the payment made by the principal noticee, the Petitioner could not be subjected to a separate demand in respect of the same transactions. 20. Reliance has also been placed upon Section 75(13) of the CGST Act. It is contended that, in view of the conclusion of the earlier proceedings, the Petitioner cannot be subjected to a penalty for the same act or omission in the proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 2. 21. The learned counsel accordingly submits that the impugned Show Cause Notice as well as the order dated 29.08.2024 deserve to be quashed and the pending proceedings before Respondent No. 2 deserve to be brought to an end. ANALYSIS & FINDINGS: 22. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the Petitioner and has perused the material placed on record. 23. At the outset, it is necessary to notice that the Petitioner seeks to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court against an order dated 29.08.2024 whereby a demand has been raised under the CGST Act. The statutory scheme provides a remedy of appeal against such ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er" occurring in Section 6(2)(b) is therefore of central significance. The mere fact that two proceedings arise out of the affairs of the same assessee, relate to overlapping periods, or originate from transactions having some common factual background, does not, by itself, establish that the two proceedings concern the same subject matter. 31. The nature and scope of the two proceedings have, therefore, to be examined. 32. In the present case, the Show Cause Notice dated 29.05.2024 issued by Respondent No. 2 under Section 73 of the CGST Act concerns the allegation that the Petitioner had not declared its correct tax liability for the period April 2019 to March 2020. The Impugned Order dated 29.08.2024 further records the allegation that the Petitioner had availed ITC from taxpayers who had not paid the tax on their outward supplies and, consequently, that the Petitioner was not entitled to the ITC with reference to Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act. 33. The proceedings initiated by the DGGI, on the other hand, arose out of a different set of allegations. The Show Cause Notice dated 31.03.2023 was issued against forty-five (45) noticees, including the Petitioner and the for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e manner suggested. 40. The proceedings initiated pursuant to the DGGI Show Cause Notice were ultimately concluded on account of the payment made by the principal noticee, M/s Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., of the tax liability along with applicable interest and penalty at the prescribed rate. On that basis, the proceedings against the co-noticees, including the Petitioner, were treated as concluded in terms of the statutory provision contained in Explanation 1 to Section 74 of the CGST Act and the corresponding provisions. 41. The consequence of the aforesaid conclusion is that no tax, interest or penalty has been directed to be recovered from the Petitioner in those proceedings. The Petitioner, therefore, cannot rely upon the said conclusion to contend that the separate liability determined against it by Respondent No. 2 under the impugned order automatically stands extinguished. 42. The subsequent conclusion of the DGGI proceedings cannot retrospectively invalidate the proceedings independently initiated by Respondent No. 2, particularly when the latter proceedings concerned a different statutory basis and a different subject matter. 43. The Petitioner has also ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Petitioner on the judgment of this Court in Amit Gupta (supra) also does not alter the conclusion reached herein. The said decision recognizes the statutory scheme intended to prevent multiple proceedings on the same subject matter. It does not dispense with the statutory requirement that the proceedings sought to be interdicted must actually concern the same subject matter. That foundational requirement is absent in the present case. 50. The Petitioner's contention that the DGGI proceedings had exclusive jurisdiction merely because the investigation was first initiated by the Anti-Evasion Branch and subsequently transferred to the DGGI is also not sufficient to sustain the present petition. The transfer of an investigation in respect of one set of allegations cannot, in the absence of identity of subject matter, operate as a blanket ouster of the jurisdiction otherwise available to another proper officer under the GST enactment. 51. The Court is, therefore, unable to accept the submission that the Show Cause Notice dated 29.05.2024 was rendered without jurisdiction merely because the DGGI had earlier issued a Show Cause Notice dated 31.03.2023 against the Petitioner a....