Snapshot-11-Snapshot of Latest GST Cases..

-Only summary issued in DRC-01 with no proper SCN
-No Opportunity of being heard given
-Relied upon documents not given
– Interference of High Court at SCN Stage
-SCN being an order by itself and pre-meditates the issue



Case Subject



Cases Referred


Section 73,
Section 74
and Section

-Only summary issued
in DRC-01 with no
proper SCN issued
-No Opportunity of
being heard given
-Relied upon
documents not given

Industries v.
State of
Jharkhand [2023]
140 (Jharkhand)

-High Court observed that a summary of a show cause notice cannot be a substitute of a
proper show cause notice and would entail violation of principles of natural justice. In the
absence of clear charges upon which the person so alleged is required to answer, proper
opportunity to defend itself stands denied. No opportunity of hearing was granted to the
petitioners contrary to the mandate of Section 75(4) and (5). Relied upon documents, which
were basis for passing summary order were not supplied to petitioner.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned summary of show cause and impugned
summary of order contained were quashed.

-Nkas Services Private Limited
Vrs. State of Jharkhand -2021
SCC Online Jhar 1266.
- M/s Godavari Commodities
Ltd. Vrs. State of Jharkhand.
[W.P.(T) No. 3908 of 2020
-Natwar Singh Vrs. Director of
Enforcement. 2010(13) SCC 255.


Section 18

Extension of time for
filing of ITC-01 on
changeover from
composition scheme
to normal

Alpha Polymers
v. Commissioner,
[2023] 150 139

Petitioner has made a representation for extension of time for filing of ITC-01 before the first
respondent and the first respondent instead of passing orders on the said representation,
kept the matter pending for nearly a year and thereafter, the second respondent passed the
order impugned in this writ petition stating that the petitioner's request was rejected by the
first respondent and the said order has been issued with the approval of the first respondent.
The High Court set aside the order and remitted to the first respondent, who shall pass
appropriate orders, after hearing the petitioner.



Section 73
and Section

Interference of High
Court at Show Cause
Notice Stage
When Show cause
notice is an order by
itself and it premeditates the issu

Joyous Blocks &
Panels (P.) Ltd.
v. Assistant
Taxes [2023] 150 138

-If a show cause notice suffers from the vice of lack of jurisdiction, Courts are entitled to
interfere with the same.
-In the present matter, once inspection of the business premises was completed, a query
was raised by the officer The appellants had submitted an elaborate reply for such a query
and the authority while issuing the show cause notice has dealt with the reply under the
heading “Rebuttal on the factual points”.
The High Court observed that prima facie SCN appears to be an order and the manner of
issuing show cause notice has not been rightly understood by the authority. Partly the
appellants have to be blamed because the appellants for the query raised by the authority
had misconstrued the scope of the query and proceeded to make elaborate factual
submissions. If appellants had restricted their reply only to the extent query raised, this
problem could have been averted. Thus, not only the authority committed a mistake in
proceeding to reject all the contentions and then issued the show cause notice, equally the
appellants also committed a mistake in mentioning facts which were not required to be done
pursuant the query raised by the authority.
For the above reasons the appeal was allowed and the order passed was set aside with a
direction to isssue a fresh show cause notice with an open mind without pre-deciding any

Siemens India vs. State of
Maharashtra 2007 (207) ELT 168

Part-5-Snapshot to the Cases on Cross Empowerment and Issuance of Summons/SCN for same subject by different authorities/same authority for same year/different years

Hope this would be an Interesting Read as there is a lot of debate on Cross Empowerment and Issuance of Summons/SCN for same subject by different authorities/same authority for same year/different years. The Gist provides a summary of the cases and admittedly the dust is not yet settled and would take time to settle..


Case Subject




Cases Referred


Summon Issued
on same subject
matter by Central
and State

Tvl. Al-Madhina Steel
Traders v.
Officer (ECM) [2023] 148 86 (Madras)
Dated 07-02-2023

It was alleged that Central Authority has issued summon on the same subject matter
on which summon has already been issued by the State Authority, which is impermissible
under law as per the provisions of section 6(2)(b) of the GST Act 2017.
The High Court directed the Central Authority to consider the reply submitted by the
petitioner and in case it is decided that the subject matter is one and the same, they will
have to necessarily drop the proposed initiation of proceedings against the petitioner as
per the provisions of section 6(2)(b) of the GST Act 2017

In Favour of



Summon issued
by State
Authority and by

Kuppan Gounder P.G.
Natarajan v. Directorate
General of GST Intelligence
[2022] 143 289

State authority had conducted the search and seizure operations and summons had
been issued, order of provisional attachment had been passed and in such situation it was
alleged by the petitioner that Directorate General of GST Intelligence cannot initiate
any action and issue summons under section 70 of the CGST Act and the summons
is barred as per the provisions of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.
It was held that the scope of section 6(2)(b) and section 70 is different and distinct, as the
former deals with any "proceedings on a subject matter/same subject matter" whereas,
section 70 deals with power to summon in an inquiry and therefore, the words
"proceedings" and "inquiry" cannot be mixed up to read as if there is a bar for the
respondent to invoke the power under section 70 of the CGST Act

In Favour of

-G.K. Trading Co. v.
Union of India [2021]
211/51 GSTL 288
-RCI Industries and
Technologies Ltd. v.
DGST Delhi [2021]
342/84 GST 636/46
GSTL 123 (Delhi).
-Dadhichi Iron and
Steel (P.) Ltd. v.
Chhattisgarh GST
[2020] 116 334/80
GST 167/35 GSTL 4


Summon issued
by State Authority and by

Authority and by
DGGST Authority and by

It was contended by the petitioner that once Deputy Commissioner (SIB), Ghaziabad,
has conducted a survey of the business premises of the petitioner on 30-5-2018 and is investigating in the matter pursuant to the aforesaid survey, no inquiry can be initiated
or summon can be issued by the DGGSTI Meerut Zonal Unit, Meerut under section
70 of the C.G.S.T. Act against the petitioner even if basis of material of
inquiry/investigation by them may be different. In other words, the State Authority may
investigate/inquire in all the matters pertaining to the business of the petitioner and,
therefore, the summons in the matter of inquiry issued by the Central Authority is barred
by the provisions of section 6(2)(b) of the C.G.S.T. Act.
It was held by the High Court that the word "proceedings" used in Section 6(2)(b) is qualified
by the words "subject-matter" which indicate an adjudication process/proceedings on the
same cause of action and for the same dispute, which may be proceedings relating to
assessment, audit, demands and recovery and offences and penalties etc. It was further
pointed out that these proceedings are subsequent to inquiry under section 70 of the CGST
Act and the words "in any inquiry" are referable to the provisions under Chapter XIV viz.,
sections 67, 68, 69, 71 and 72. Thus, it was held that the proper officer may invoke power
under section 70 in any inquiry and the prohibition under section 6(2)(b) shall come into
play when any proceeding on the same subject-matter had already been initiated by a
proper officer under the State Act. Therefore, the contention raised by the appellant stating
that in issuance of summons for conducting an inquiry and to obtain a statement from the
appellant cannot be construed to be bar under section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. Thus, the
key words occurring in both the provisions viz., "in any inquiry" and "proceedings on the
same-subject matter" indicate the crucial difference between these two provisions.

In Favour of


Summon issued
by State
stayed pending
the proceedings
before Central

Raj Metal Industries v. Union
of India [2021] 127 546 (Calcutta)

The High Court stayed the proceedings initiated by summons issued on October 19,
2020 by the State GST which prima facie, in the opinion of the High Court were in violation
of Section 6(2)(b) of the WBGST Act since the proceedings were pending before the
Central GST Authorities.

In Favour of

-Liberty Oil
Mills v. Union of
India [1984] 3 SCC
-Ballabh Das v. Dr.
Madanlal [1970] 1
SCC 761


Show Cause
Notice issued by
State Authority
for Illegal
availment of ITC
and subsequent
of proceedings by DGGSTI on
same matter 

Dadhichi Iron and Steel (P.)
Ltd. v. Chhattisgarh GST
[2020] 116 334
Dated 25-02-2020

It was alleged that once a show cause notice proceeding have been initiated and are
pending before the concerned authorities under the SGST, then DGGSTI could not
have issued or initiated another investigation or proceeding in-respect of the same
subject matter, which otherwise is not permissible under the provisions of Section
The High Court held that the initial issuance of the show cause notice and the proceedings
drawn were in respect of the intrastate transactions made by the petitioner, whereas subsequent to a secret information being received and further investigation being made,
particularly in the course of a raid, which was conducted at the premises of the petitionerestablishment and other related premises, it was revealed that the magnitude of the offence
committed by the petitioner-establishment was far more grave and serious. It was in the
course of raid found that the petitioner had been making false and bogus transactions and
has illegally availed ineligible ITC credits. The magnitude of which detected by now is
approximately Rs. 60 crores and with further investigation the amount is likely to increase
manifold. The High Court thus did not find any substance in the arguments of the petitioner,
when petitioner contended that the investigation and the proceedings now initiated is one,
which hit by section 6(2)(1)(b) of the CGST Act of 2017.

In Favour of


SCN issued by
commenced by
State Authority

Industries and Technologies
Ltd. v. Commissioner
DGST, Delhi [2021] 123 342 (Delhi)

The Primary ground of contention by the Petitioner was of parallel investigation and the
contention is borne out of the notice dated 30th September, 2020, whereby the documents
for the period of 2017-18 to 2020-21 were requisitioned by State GST Authority. It was
contended by the Petitioner that since DGGI has issued a show-cause notice under
section 74 of the CGST Act, for the years 2017-18 and 2018-19, then by virtue of
Section 6 of CGST Act, State GST authorities cannot carry out the investigation for
the said period.
The High Court observed that the request in the notice dated 30th September, 2020
cannot ipso facto lead to the conclusion that there is a parallel investigation for the same
period by both the Central and State Authorities. The High Court also observed that in the
event the notice issued by the State authorities pertains to a period which is covered by
the investigation carried out by the Central GST authorities, the Petitioner can take
recourse to the appropriate remedies in that regard.
The High Court held that if an officer of the Central GST initiates intelligence- based
enforcement action against a taxpayer administratively assigned to State GST, the officers
of the former would not transfer the said case to their counterparts in the latter department
and they would themselves take the case to its logical conclusion. The revenue would be
bound by Letter Dated 5-10-2018 and letter issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes
and Customs being No. CBEC-20/10/07/2019-GST dated 22th June, 2020 and high court
reiterated that in case the action of the State and Central Authorities is overlapping, the
Petitioner would be at liberty to take action to impugn the same in accordance with law

In Favour of


Proceedings by
State and Central

Sonam Berlia v. State of
Odisha MANU/OR/0306/2021
Dated 23-03-2021

Petitioner's business premises was impounded by the DGGSTI and a search was
undertaken thereof. During the course of search records, documents were seized and
summons were issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act on various dates by
DGGSTI. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued by the Additional CT and GST Officer, Sambalpur- I Circle (SGST) wherein Petitioner was asked to pay OGST,
CGST, interest, penalty to the tune of Rs.3,78,68,262.08 on ITC wrongly availed. The
petitioner submitted that since the Senior Intelligence Officer of the DGGSTI, Bhubaneswar
has seized all the documents and issued summons pursuant to which the Petitioner was
appearing there from time to time, the proceedings initiated by State GST should be kept
in abeyance till such time of proceedings before the DGGSTI concluded. Despite the above
request, State GST Officer proceeded to pass an order under Section 74 of the OGST Act
requiring the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,74,74,953.98 towards OGST, CGST, interest,
penalty. The State Authorities in their reply did not dispute the circular dated 5th October,
2018 but claim not to have known that the Central tax authority was seized of the matter.
The High Court observed that period of enquiry as far as Central tax authority is concerned
is from July, 2017 to September, 2018 whereas State Authority has issued a show cause
notice specific for April, 2018 and, therefore, there is also an overlapping of the periods.
Therefore, the High Court quashed the show cause notice and the impugned order issued
by the State Authority and directed that till the conclusion of the proceedings initiated
against the Petitioner by the DGGSTI, no coercive action be taken against the Petitioner
by State GST Authority.

In Favour of


Proceedings of
investigation and

Om Sakthi Construction v.
Assistant Commissioner
[2023] 147 434

In the present matter, Inspection and seizure of documents was on 16-3-2020, the first
impugned notice under Section 65 is dated 30-8-2022, 'show cause notice' based on
inspection was issued on dated 18-10-2022, reply to the SCN is dated 22-11-2022, second
and third impugned notices are dated 23-11-2022 and 27-12-2022.
The High Court held that here is nothing to demonstrate that when the audit under section
65 has been kick started by way of a notice, thereafter show cause notice under section
74 is impermissible.

In Favour of

-R.P. Buildcon (P.)
Ltd. v.
CGST & C.Ex. [2022]
108/[2023] (Cal.)
-Sonam Berlia v.
State of Odisha


Existence of
Audit and

Suresh Kumar P.P. v.
Deputy Director, Directorate
General of GST
Intelligence (DGGI) [2020]
120 173

GST Authorities initiated the search and seizure proceedings against Managing Director
and Director of Media Company. Pursuant to such proceedings summons u/s 70 were
issued. Thereafter, notice for audit under section 65 of CGST Act was also issued.
Various documents were seized vide Order of Seizure dated 09.06.2020. The petitioner
prayed for relief from such enquiry proceedings.
Petition was dismissed by holding that auditing of books as well as order of seizure of
documents would help the department in co-relating the entries in the documents and at
the time of auditing of the account. The procedure for further actions is contained in Chapter
15 of CGST Act. Therefore, it would be too premature to comment upon the act of the respondents and cannot be said to be against the provisions of the statute or misuse,
warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
SLP Filed before Supreme Court in the matter has been dismissed. Suresh Kumar P. P.
v. Deputy Director, Directorate General Of GST Intelligence (DGGI) [2021] 125 61 (SC)

In Favour of


initiated by Audit,
Investigation and
for same years

R. P. Buildcon (P.) Ltd. v.
Superintendent, CGST &
Central Excise [2022] 144 108 (Calcutta)
Dated 30-09-2022

In the present matter, three wings of the same department are proceeding against the
appellants for the very same period, i.e. financial years 2017- 2018, 2018-2019 and
2019-2020. The first of the department which had taken action was the Audit
Commissionerate, which had issued notice under section 65 of the CGST Act, 2017 dated
9th November, 2021. It is submitted that the appellants had furnished the details as called
for in the said notice and also responded to the intimation dated 5th January, 2022/6th
January, 2022for conducting GST audit. In the meantime, the other two wings of the
department, viz. Anti Evasion wing as well as the Range Office have also proceeded
against the appellants by issuing notices for the very same period for which audit
proceedings under section 65 of the Act has already commenced. Revenue in its reply
stated that the three wings of the department are proceeding against the appellants
because the Range office was not aware about the proceedings initiated by the Audit
Commissionerate and the Anti Evasion also was not aware of the same.
The High Court observed that it is not clear as to why in the present days of electronic
communications available in the department, such parallel proceedings can be conducted
by three wings of the same department for the very same period. Thus, it held that since
the audit proceedings under section 65 of the Act has already commenced, it is but
appropriate that the proceedings should be taken to the logical end. The proceedings
initiated by the Anti Evasion and Range Office for the very same period shall not be
proceeded with any further.

n Favour of


Transfer of
having common
link initiated by
Authorities to
one single

Indo International Tobacco
Ltd. v. Vivek Prasad,
Additional Director General
(DGGI) [2022] 134 157 (Delhi)

The investigations were initiated by various jurisdictional authorities against different
entities. As contended by the respondents, as common thread were allegedly found in
these investigations, the same have been transferred to DGGI, AZU to be brought
under one umbrella. We also find that in the CGST Act there is no prohibition to such
transfer. Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act has limited application and therefore, is not
applicable to the facts of the present petitions. Similarly, the Circular dated 5-10-2018 also
has no application to the facts of the present petitions. 

In Favour of

Textiles v Additional
General 2020 (35)
G.S.T.L. 36
Gadhecha v. State of
Gujarat [2020] 114 478/79
GST 33


Show Cause
Notice issued on
same subject
matter by Central
and State

[2023] 148 83
(Madras) VGN Projects
Estates (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant
Commissioner (State Taxes)

It was alleged that a similar show cause notice has already been issued by the Central
Authority under CGST Act, 2017 on 29-7-2022 against the petitioner, involving the very
same defects. It was submitted by the authority that a detailed reply has not been sent by
the petitioner to the impugned show cause notice and for the similar defects for which
notice has been issued by the Central Authority, such defects will be omitted and action
shall be initiated in respect of the balance defects alone.
The High Court disposed of the petition stating that the limited relief that can be granted to
the petitioner is to permit them to file a detailed reply to the impugned show cause notice,
stating all their objections that have been raised in this Writ Petition including the objection
with regard to section 6(2)(b) of the TNGST Act, 2017 and on receipt of the said reply, a
direction can be issued to the respondents to consider the said reply on merits and in
accordance with law within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

In Favour of