M/S A B And Co. vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

The petitioner has assailed the second show cause notice No.19/2024 dated 04.08.2024 (Annexure P-3) as well as consequential order-in- original No.108/GST/ADC/CHD/2024-25 dated 03.02.2025 (Annexure P-4) confirming the demand of tax of Rs.7,77,36,016/-, on the ground that second show cause notice is in respect of the same allegations, and therefore, section 6(2)(b) of the GST Act, 2017 stands violated by the action of the respondents.

The undisputed facts of the case are that a show cause notice was earlier issued by respondent No.4-DGGI, Ludhiana, wherein it was alleged that ITC was wrongly availed in respect of seven individuals, from whom supplies were availed by the petitioner. This show cause notice resulted in passing of an order of demand, and the same was confirmed. An appeal against the order-in- original arising out of the first show cause notice is pending. MOHIT GOYAL 2026.07.16 14:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

The second show cause notice was issued by respondent No.3- DGGI, New Delhi, wherein nine transactions have been referred to, in order to submit that the ITC availed qua those nine suppliers was incorrect. In both the show cause notices, seven entities are common.

In the impugned show cause notice, there are two additional entities qua which the petitioner seeks leave to file an appeal. It is submitted that the order impugned, insofar as it relates to seven common entities in the two show cause notices, needs to be set aside. It is also submitted that respondent No.2 has passed two separate orders on the same day, arising out of two show cause notices, whereby the authorities have imposed the liability of tax twice upon the petitioner in respect of seven entities. Submission is that in such circumstances, section 6(2)(b) of the GST Act has been violated.

Facts, as have been asserted by the petitioner, are not in dispute. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, states that the petitioner had failed to point out before respondent No.2 that there were parallel show cause notices issued in respect of the same entities.

We fail to appreciate the stand taken by the respondents, inasmuch as when the second respondent on the same day was passing two separate orders, he was expected to be aware of the facts as highlighted before this Court, insofar as seven common suppliers are concerned, namely, Manpreet Singh, Kamal, Jaspal Singh, Pardeep Kumar, Sumit Kumar, Dharmender and Sukhdev.

The issuance of multiple show cause notices in respect of the same transaction, on account of alleged illegal availing of ITC could not have been passed. The issuance of the second show cause notice as well as consequential order-in-original insofar as such seven entities are concerned, cannot be MOHIT GOYAL 2026.07.16 14:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

The impugned show cause notice as well as the order-in-original, insofar it relates to Jai Mata Traders and Himmat Traders are concerned, shall survive and the petitioner shall be at liberty to file an appeal in that regard.

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.