Sanskriti Exim Private Limited vs. Directorate General Of GST Intelligence, Dzu And Ors.

Held

The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the DGGI proceedings were not without jurisdiction under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, as the subject matter of the State and Central proceedings was distinct (ineligible ITC vs. fraudulent ITC from fictitious entities). The Court also ruled that a consolidated Show Cause Notice covering multiple financial years is not inherently impermissible and found no patent jurisdictional infirmity warranting extraordinary intervention, advising the petitioner to pursue the efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act.

Facts

The petitioner, engaged in export, was investigated by DGGI for alleged fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) from non-existent entities, used for IGST on exports and refunds. Prior to this, State GST authorities had already initiated proceedings and issued demand orders under Section 73 of the DGST Act for alleged ineligible ITC for earlier financial years. The DGGI subsequently issued a Show Cause Notice under Sections 74 and 122 of the CGST Act, covering multiple financial years, which culminated in an Order-in-Original confirming the demand and imposing penalties.

Key Issues

The key legal issues were whether the DGGI proceedings were barred by Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act due to parallel State GST proceedings on alleged wrongful ITC availment, and whether the issuance of a consolidated Show Cause Notice covering multiple financial years was impermissible.