M/S Mitsubishi Elevator INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner received two show cause notices (SCNs) for GST dues. One SCN was from the Central GST authorities, and the other was from the State GST authorities. The petitioner argued that the State GST SCN was barred by law as the Central GST authorities had already initiated proceedings.
Held
The Court held that the State GST SCN was illegal and barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the KGST Act because the Central GST authorities had already initiated proceedings for the same subject matter. The Court also directed the Central GST authorities to pass separate adjudication orders for all tax periods.
Key Issues
Whether a State GST authority can initiate proceedings when Central GST authorities have already initiated proceedings for the same subject matter. Whether separate adjudication orders should be passed to enable availing an Amnesty Scheme.
Sections Cited
Section 6(2)(b), Section 70, Section 128A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “a) Issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India quashing the impugned Show Cause Notices, NC: 2025:KHC:14433 F.No.DGGI/NZ/INV/ME/79/2023/26098 dated 29.09.2023 and bearing No.JCCT(VIG)ACCT(Vig)-01/73-74/2023-24 dated 29.09.2023 issued by the Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.6 in FORM GST DRC-01 enclosed at Annexure-A and Annexure-B respectively; b) Pass such further order(s) and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.”
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the impugned Show Cause Notice at Annexure – B dated 29.09.2023 issued by respondent No.6 – State Revenue in order to point out that even though proceedings have been initiated by respondent No.4 in September 2022, respondent No.6 – State authorities have initiated proceedings vide impugned Show Cause Notice at Annexure – B, which is barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the KGST Act and consequently, the same deserves to be quashed in the light of the judgment of the this Court in the M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others – W.P.No.22952/2023 dated 21.08.2024. NC: 2025:KHC:14433
It is also submitted that the valuation for the purpose of payment of taxes plus interest is covered by Circular No.210/4/2024-GST dated 26.06.2024 and the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Thales India Private Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner of CGST, Audit – II, Delhi & Another – 2025 (2) TMI 245 – Delhi High Court. It is therefore submitted that the petition may be allowed and disposed of accordingly.
It is further submitted that the respondents may be directed to pass separate adjudication orders for all the tax-periods under dispute so as to enable the petitioner to avail the benefit of Amnesty Scheme under Section 128A of the CGST Act.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.
A perusal of the material on record will indicate that it is an undisputed fact that in September 2022, respondent No.4 had initiated proceedings / intimation under Section 70 of the CGST Act by issuing letter on 21.09.2022, which is followed by the Show Cause Notices dated 29.09.2023. Meanwhile, despite having initiated proceedings on 21.09.2022, respondent No.6 – State NC: 2025:KHC:14433 authorities have issued the impugned Show Cause Notice at Annexure – B. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the said issue is answered by this Court in M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others – W.P.No.22952/2023 dated 21.08.2024, wherein it is held as under:
“9. A perusal of the material on record and the submissions made by both sides will clearly indicate that prior to the State GST Authorities issuing the impugned Show Cause Notices at Annexures – A, A1, A2 is concerned, the Central GST Authorities had already initiated proceedings as against the petitioner and consequently, in the light of Section 6(2)(b) of the KGST Act, 2017 which contemplates a complete bar / embargo on the State GST Authorities to initiate proceedings in a situation where the Central GST Authorities had already initiated proceedings as against the petitioner in respect of the same subject matter. I am of the considered view that the impugned Show Cause Notices at Annexures – A, A1 and A2 are clearly illegal, arbitrary and without juri iction or authority of law and contrary to the aforesaid statutory provisions and the same deserve to be quashed.”
As held in the aforesaid judgment, in view of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, Annexure – Bdeserve to be quashed.
Insofar as the valuation regarding payment of tax and interests are concerned, in view of Circular No.210/4/2024-GST dated 26.06.2024 even this issue would necessarily have to be decided by respondent No.4 in accordance with law and the decision of Delhi High Court in Thales India Private Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner of CGST, Audit – II, Delhi & Another – 2025 (2) TMI 245 – Delhi High Court. NC: 2025:KHC:14433
Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that separate adjudication orders are to be passed for all the tax periods are concerned, respondent No.4 is directed to pass separate adjudication orders for all the tax periods under dispute so as to enable the petitioner to avail the benefit of Amnesty scheme under Section 128A of the CGST Act.
In the result, I pass the following: ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned Show Cause Notice at Annexure – B dated 29.09.2023 issued by respondent No.6 is hereby quashed. (iii) Petitioner is relegated to the stage of filing reply to the Show Cause Notice at Annexure – A dated 29.09.2023 before respondent No.4. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file its reply, pleadings, documents, etc., before respondent No.4, who shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law bearing in mind the judgment NC: 2025:KHC:14433 of this Court in M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others – W.P.No.22952/2023 dated 21.08.2024; thedecision of Delhi High Court in Thales India Audit – II, Delhi & Another – 2025 (2) TMI 245 – Delhi High Court and Circular No.210/4/2024-GST dated 26.06.2024. (v) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. (vi) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to seek the benefit of Amnesty scheme under Section 128A of the CGST Act after respondent No.4 passes separate adjudication orders for all the tax periods under dispute. If such a request for availing Amnesty Scheme is made by the petitioner, the respondent No.4 shall consider the same and proceed further in accordance with law. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.