Central Tax Gst Delhi East Delhi Archives - Tax Heal https://www.taxheal.com/tag/central-tax-gst-delhi-east-delhi Complete Guide for Income Tax and GST in India Fri, 25 Sep 2026 07:43:31 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1.2 CGST order preceding SGST notices valid; writ jurisdiction declined due to available statutory appeal. https://www.taxheal.com/anil-kshetrapal-and-shail-jain-jj.html Fri, 25 Sep 2026 07:43:31 +0000 https://www.taxheal.com/?p=141495 CGST order preceding SGST notices valid; writ jurisdiction declined due to available statutory appeal. Issue Whether Section 6(2)(b) bars a CGST officer from proceeding under Section 74 when CGST Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued prior to subsequent notices issued by SGST authorities for overlapping periods. Whether an earlier order under Section 67(7) regarding search… Read More »

]]>
CGST order preceding SGST notices valid; writ jurisdiction declined due to available statutory appeal.

Issue

  1. Whether Section 6(2)(b) bars a CGST officer from proceeding under Section 74 when CGST Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued prior to subsequent notices issued by SGST authorities for overlapping periods.
  2. Whether an earlier order under Section 67(7) regarding search and seizure of goods without invoices constitutes parallel adjudication barring a subsequent Section 74 demand order passed after full investigation.
  3. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition under Article 226 raising jurisdictional challenges when an efficacious statutory appeal remedy under Section 107 is available.

Facts

  • Period Involved: Financial Years 2017-18 to 2021-22.
  • Search & First Order: A search conducted on 03.02.2020 resulted in the seizure of goods without invoices. Proceedings under Section 67(7) culminated in an order dated 06.09.2022 dropping the search-related proceedings.
  • CGST SCN & Order: Post-investigation, the CGST authority issued an SCN under Section 74 on 22.03.2023 covering FYs 2017-18 to 2021-22. The petitioner replied on 16.02.2024, and the CGST proper officer passed an order on 11.01.2025.
  • SGST Proceedings: SGST authorities subsequently issued notices for FYs 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 on 05.09.2023, 05.12.2023, and 29.03.2024, passing respective orders on 29.12.2023, 23.01.2024, and 08.10.2024.
  • Writ Petition: The petitioner directly challenged the CGST order dated 11.01.2025 before the High Court via a writ petition, alleging jurisdictional bars under Section 6(2)(b) and parallel adjudication.

Decision

  • No Statutory Bar under Section 6(2)(b): The CGST SCN dated 22.03.2023 was issued prior to the SGST notices. Therefore, the statutory bar under Section 6(2)(b) prohibiting parallel proceedings by CGST officers was not attracted (In favour of Revenue). [Para 12]
  • Distinct Proceedings: The search order dated 06.09.2022 was limited to seized goods, whereas the Section 74 order dated 11.01.2025 was passed post-investigation into tax/ITC liabilities. The proceedings were distinct in scope and foundation, not amounting to parallel adjudication (In favour of Revenue). [Para 14]
  • Relegation to Statutory Appeal: As no jurisdictional infirmity was established, the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and relegated the petitioner to the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107, directing the exclusion of time spent in writ proceedings for limitation purposes (In favour of Revenue). [Paras 17 and 18]

Key Takeaways

  1. Chronological Priority in GST Jurisdiction: The bar under Section 6(2)(b) applies only if an SGST officer initiates proceedings on the same subject matter before the CGST officer; prior initiation by a CGST officer validates their jurisdiction.
  2. Distinct Scope of Search vs. Demand Proceedings: Orders concerning seized goods under Section 67 do not preclude broader tax assessment and demand proceedings under Section 74.
  3. Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies: High Courts will not bypass the statutory appellate framework under Section 107 unless a clear, unassailable jurisdictional defect or fundamental violation of natural justice is demonstrated.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Shub Conductors LLP
v.
Joint Commissioner Central Tax Gst Delhi East Delhi
ANIL KSHETRAPAL and SHAIL JAIN, JJ.
W.P. (C) No. 4126 of 2025
CM APPL. No. 19123 of 2025
AUGUST  5, 2026
Sunil Agarwal, Ms. Harshita Sharma and Adeeb Ahmad, Advs. for the Petitioner. Piyush Beriwal, Ms. Ruchita Srivastava and Sparsh Jain, Advs. for the Respondent.
ORDER
Anil Kshetarpal, J. – Through the present Writ Petition, the Petitioners pray for the following reliefs:
“(a) issue writ of certiorari, mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India quashing the Impugned Order dated 11-1-2025 passed by the Respondents;
(b) issue writ of certiorari, mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India quashing all consequential proceedings/ actions/notices consequent thereto;
(c) issue writ of certiorari, mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India calling for the records relating to the Petitioners from Respondent/Revenue;”
2. The Petitioners have a remedy of Statutory Appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [hereinafter referred to as ‘CGST Act’] against the order dated 11.01.2025.
3. Learned counsel representing the Petitioners has essentially made the following three (03) submissions:
i. Two (02) simultaneous orders have been passed under Sections 74 and 73 of the CGST Act in respect of the same period;
ii. the proceedings initiated by the CGST Authorities were barred by Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, and
iii. Since the controversy raises a pure question of law, this Court ought to entertain the present Writ Petition notwithstanding the availability of the statutory remedy.
4. Learned counsel representing the Respondents has submitted that the search of the Petitioner’s premises was carried out on 03.02.2020, during which certain goods were seized as they were found to be without any invoices. Subsequently, the matter was adjudicated by issuing Notice under Section 67(7) of the CGST Act on 06.09.2022, and the proceedings were dropped.
5. It is further contended by learned counsel representing the Respondents that after the investigation, the Competent Authority under the CGST Act issued a Show Cause Notice (‘SCN’) under Section 74 of the CGST Act on 22.03.2023 in respect of the period spanning five (05) Financial Years, i.e., F.Ys. 2017-18 to 2021-22.
6. It was alleged that the Petitioner had wrongfully availed Input Tax Credit and had evaded payment of tax. The Petitioner filed its reply on 16.02.2024, whereafter the Adjudicating Authority, upon consideration of the matter, passed the order dated 11.01.2025.
7. Learned counsel representing the Respondents also submits that the State Goods and Services Tax (‘SGST’) Authorities issued following three (03) Notices:
i. 25.09.2023 (in respect of F.Y. 2017-18);
ii. 05.12.2023 (in respect of F.Y. 2018-19); and
iii. 29.03.2024 (in respect of F.Y. 2019-20).
8. The SGST Authorities passed the following orders:
i. 29.12.2023 (in respect of F.Y. 2017-18);
ii. 23.01.2024 (in respect of F.Y. 2018-19); and
iii. 08.10.2024 (in respect of F.Y. 2019-20).
9. Learned counsel representing the Respondent further submits that the proceedings under the CGST Act were initiated prior in point of time, the SCN having been issued on 22.03.2023, whereas the first notice by the SGST Authorities was issued only on 25.09.2023. Moreover, the Petitioner never filed any application for stay of the proceedings by the SGST Authorities as provided under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.
10. This Court has considered the submissions made by learned counsel representing the parties. The availability of an effective statutory remedy of Appeal against the order dated 11.01.2025 is not in dispute.
11. Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act provides that where a proper officer under the State Goods and Services Tax Act has initiated proceedings on a subject matter, no proceedings shall be initiated by the proper officer under the CGST Act on the same subject matter.
12. In the present case, however, the SCN under Section 74 of the CGST Act was issued on 22.03.2023, whereas the notices relied upon by the Petitioner as having been issued by the SGST Authorities came subsequently. Thus, on the chronology placed before this Court, the contention based on Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act does not disclose such a jurisdictional infirmity as would warrant bypassing the statutory remedy of Appeal.
13. Further, the order dated 06.09.2022 pertained to the proceedings relating to the goods seized during the search, whereas the order dated 11.01.2025 came to be passed after investigation, issuance of the SCN under Section 74 of the CGST Act and consideration of the Petitioner’s reply.
14. The two proceedings, therefore, cannot, merely on that basis, be treated as parallel adjudication of the same subject matter.
15. Learned counsel representing the Petitioners has relied upon Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority [2023 SCC OnLine SC 95] to contend that the existence of an alternative remedy does not preclude exercise of writ jurisdiction where a pure question of law or jurisdiction arises, as also upon Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate  111 GST 400/101 GSTL 289 (SC)/2025 SCC OnLine SC 1700. However, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, neither of the said judgments persuades this Court to entertain the present Writ Petition.
16. There can be no quarrel with the proposition laid down in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. (supra). The Supreme Court has clarified that the availability of an alternative remedy does not render a Writ Petition not maintainable, however, its entertainability remains a matter of judicial discretion.
17. This Court has examined the jurisdictional objection raised under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act and, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, finds no such infirmity in the impugned proceedings. Thus, no circumstance is made out warranting exercise of writ jurisdiction in preference to the effective statutory remedy of Appeal available to the Petitioners
18. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is disposed of, and the Petitioner is relegated to the statutory remedy of Appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The period spent by the Petitioners in prosecuting the present Petition before this Court shall stand excluded while computing the period of limitation for filing the statutory Appeal.
19. The pending application also stands closed.
]]>