M/S Sanmargg Agrotrade INDIA Private Limtied And Anr. vs. Superintendent Central Tax Group-36 Circle-08 Office Of The Commissioner Of Central Tax And Ors.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s. Sanmargg Agrotrade India Private Limited & Anr., filed a writ petition challenging proceedings initiated by four different authorities: CGST Authorities, DRI, West Bengal, and DGGI. These proceedings, covering tax periods from 2020-21 to 2025-26, were initiated for the same periods and concerned the cancellation of the same suppliers. The petitioners argued this was arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Armour Security India Ltd. vs. Commissioner CGST Delhi East Commissionerate. The DRI had already issued Orders in Original dated July 27, 2026, and July 28, 2026, for periods 2020-21 and 2021-22, to which the petitioners had replied. The DGGI authorities raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of an interlocutory application and service of notice.

Held

The Court directed the petitioners to file comprehensive and detailed replies to the consolidated Show Cause Notices issued by respondents Nos. 2 to 6 for the tax periods from 2020-21 to 2025-26, within four weeks. These replies must include all relevant documents, including the Orders in Original passed by respondent No. 7. The authority concerned (Additional Commissioner or Joint Commissioner of Central Tax, North Commissionerate, Kolkata) is to consider and dispose of these replies within six weeks of receipt, after granting a personal hearing. The Court also directed that investigations by the Anti Aviation and Audit Commissionerate should continue, with details to be shared with DGGI authorities for effective adjudication. The writ petition was disposed of without going into the merits of the case, emphasizing that authorities should make independent decisions. The petitioners were directed to cooperate and not seek unnecessary adjournments. For tax periods 2020-21 and 2021-22, M/s. Ishan Information Services Private Ltd. was also directed to file a comprehensive reply before the Joint Commissionerate.

Key Issues

1. Whether the initiation of parallel proceedings by four independent authorities for the same tax periods and concerning the same suppliers is arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction, violating the principles laid down in Armour Security India Ltd. vs. Commissioner CGST Delhi East Commissionerate? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that having multiple authorities initiate proceedings for the same issue is contrary to established legal principles, specifically referencing paragraph 97 of the Armour Security India Ltd. judgment. They sought to restrain coercive steps and prevent further notices until the writ petition was finally decided. Revenue/State's arguments: The DGGI authorities raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the interlocutory application, arguing it was not maintainable without amending the writ petition's prayers and that a copy of the application had not been served. Other respondents argued that petitioners were required to appear for investigation under Section 70 of the CGST Act and were not cooperating.