M/S Balaji Metal Industries vs. Additional Commissioner (Anti- Evasion), Central Goods And Services Tax, And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Balaji Metal Industries, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated June 17, 2025, issued under Section 74 of the CGST/UPGST Act by the Additional Commissioner (Anti-Evasion), Central Goods and Services Tax. The notice pertains to the tax periods April 2018 to March 2024. The petitioner argued that show cause notices for financial years 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2022-23 had already been issued, and assessment for 2018-19 was being completed by the U.P. GST. Therefore, the CGST authority should not issue notices for the same periods. The petitioner had already filed a representation with the authorities.
Held
The Court held that since the matter was at the show cause notice stage, the petitioner should apprise the authorities of the overlapping notices in their reply. The authorities were directed to consider this information in accordance with Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court directed the CGST authority to decide the petitioner's representation within one month from the date of the order, after granting an opportunity of hearing. The Court explicitly stated that it had not gone into the merits of the case. The operative direction was to consider the petitioner's representation and decide the case accordingly.
Key Issues
1. Whether the CGST authority can issue a show cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST/UPGST Act for tax periods for which the State GST authority has already issued a show cause notice and is proceeding with assessment, in light of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that since show cause notices for certain financial years (2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2022-23) had already been issued by the State GST authorities, and assessment for 2018-19 was underway, the CGST authority could not issue separate notices for the same periods. They relied on the principle that overlapping jurisdiction for the same tax periods should be avoided. Respondent's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent revenue authorities.
Sections Cited
Section 74, Section 6(2)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134146-DB Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 3387 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Balaji Metal Industries Respondent :- Additional Commissioner (Anti- Evasion), Central Goods And Services Tax, And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Aditya Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Parv Agarwal Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs: "I. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the case and quash the impugned notice dated 17.6.2025 issued under Section 74 of the CGST/UPGST Act by the respondent no.1 for the tax period April, 2018 to March 2024 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). II. Issue any such other and further orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
Sri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that for the financial years 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2022-23, a show cause notice has already been issued for the years and the assessment is being completed for the financial year 2018-19 by the U.P. GST. In light of the same, he submits that the CGST cannot issue show cause notices for the same periods.
Upon considering the arguments made before us, we are of the view that since the matter is at the show cause notice stage, this information may be apprised by the petitioner to the authorities concerned in his reply/objection and the authorities concerned should consider the same in accordance with section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017. Counsel for the petitioner informed that representation had already been filed by the petitioner (annexure-1). We therefore, direct the CGST authority to decide the same within a period of one month from date after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and thereafter, decide the case.
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the case. Order Date :- 7.8.2025 Dev (Praveen Kumar Giri J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf, J.) DEV PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad DEV PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.