Ms Notch INDIA Projects Rep By Its M.P Mr.D Meenaachisundram vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of CGST And C Ex

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Notch India Projects, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated May 27, 2024, issued by the 2nd respondent (State Tax Officer) and a consequential order dated August 6, 2024, issued by the 3rd respondent (State Tax Officer). The petitioner had previously faced an order from the central authority (1st respondent, Assistant Commissioner of CGST & C.Ex.) on December 26, 2023, against which an appeal was filed. The core of the dispute revolves around the jurisdiction of the State authorities to issue proceedings when the central authority had already passed a final order concerning the same subject matter. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned show cause notice and order.

Held

The Court held that the State tax authorities lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned show cause notice and consequential order because the central tax authority (1st respondent) had already passed a final order on December 26, 2023, concerning the same subject matter. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in M/S ARMOUR SECURITY (INDIA) LTD., Vs. COMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI EAST COMMISSIONERATE (2025) SCC Online SC 1700, which highlighted the importance of coordination between central and state tax authorities and the need to mitigate hardship caused by overlapping proceedings. The Court reasoned that the subject matter of the order passed by the first respondent and the impugned show cause notice clearly overlapped. Therefore, the impugned proceedings initiated by the State authorities were quashed. The Court allowed the writ petition and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the State tax authorities have jurisdiction to issue a show cause notice and consequential order when the central tax authority has already passed a final order concerning the same subject matter, in light of the principles governing the interplay of jurisdiction under the GST regime? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of principles of GST administration and potentially Section 173 of the CGST Act, 2017, and corresponding State enactments). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that once a final order has been passed by one authority (central or state), the other authority should not have jurisdiction to initiate parallel proceedings. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in M/S ARMOUR SECURITY (INDIA) LTD., Vs. COMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI EAST COMMISSIONERATE (2025) SCC Online SC 1700, which emphasized the need for coordination and avoiding overlapping proceedings. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondents regarding their jurisdiction in this matter.