Shri B T Siddappa vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of

Held

The Court held that the petition in W.P. No. 28817/2026, challenging proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST/KGST Act, is allowed. The Court reasoned that initiating proceedings under Section 74 for the same financial year and subject matter already adjudicated under Section 73 by the same officer is impermissible, especially when the Court was already seized of the petitioner's grievance regarding the Section 73 order. The Court quashed the intimation, show cause notice, and adjudication order issued under Section 74. Regarding W.P. No. 29033/2024, the Court held that the petitioner cannot succeed in seeking directions against the tax authorities to act contrary to statutory terms or to compel the Executive Engineer to enter into supplementary agreements and pay differential GST, based on the Division Bench's decision in Writ Appeal No. 652/2026. This decision had opined that blanket directions cannot be issued without reference to contract terms and that tax authorities cannot be directed to act contrary to statutes. Therefore, the adjudication order under Section 73 was not interfered with, and any remedy against the Executive Engineer would require separate proceedings where contract terms could be examined. The Court allowed the petitioner liberty to institute a civil suit against the second respondent, subject to all just exceptions. The ratio is that parallel proceedings under Section 73 and Section 74 for the same tax period and subject matter are not permissible, and directions to tax authorities must conform to statutory provisions, while contractual disputes require examination of contract terms.

Facts

The petitioner, Shri B.T. Siddappa, a proprietor and PWD contractor, filed two writ petitions challenging proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. WP No. 29033/2024 challenged proceedings under Section 73 of the CGST/KGST Act for FY 2018-19, including a show cause notice dated 18.11.2023, an adjudication order dated 29.04.2024, and a recovery notice dated 05.10.2024. WP No. 28817/2026 challenged subsequent proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST/KGST Act for the same financial year, including an intimation dated 11.06.2025, a show cause notice dated 25.06.2025, and an adjudication order dated 30.12.2025. The petitioner contended that initiating proceedings under Section 74 for the same tax period and subject matter already adjudicated under Section 73 by the same officer was without jurisdiction. The petitioner also sought directions to the Executive Engineer to enter into a supplementary agreement and pay differential GST, relying on a previous High Court judgment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the initiation and continuation of proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST/KGST Act for FY 2018-19, for the same subject matter already adjudicated under Section 73 of the Act by the same officer, is without jurisdiction, illegal, and void, as argued by the petitioner. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to directions for the Executive Engineer to enter into a supplementary agreement and pay differential GST, as per the petitioner's reliance on the decision in Sri Chandrashekharaiah’s case. The petitioner argued that there cannot be two different proceedings for the same financial period and on the same propositions, and that the proceedings under Section 74 were therefore without jurisdiction. The petitioner also relied on the decision in Sri Chandrashekharaiah’s case for the relief sought against the Executive Engineer. The Revenue did not record specific arguments on these points, but the Court considered a Division Bench decision in Writ Appeal No. 652/2026.