Jaiprakash Associates Limited v/s Union of India & Anr

Avinash Zargar, an advocate representing the petitioner, has filed a petition challenging a show cause notice dated 21st July 2020, issued by respondent No.2, as well as recovery notices dated 18th September 2019, passed by respondent No.6. The petitioner seeks relief from these notices, presumably on legal grounds.

Gajendra Singh, another advocate, represents the respondents from the GST Intelligence, indicating that the matter involves tax-related issues.

Additionally, Ankit Agarwal, serving as the Government Advocate for respondent No.4/State, is also involved in the case, suggesting government involvement or interest.

The details provided indicate a legal dispute likely centered around taxation issues, with the petitioner contesting the validity or legality of the notices issued by the respondents. Avinash Zargar, representing the petitioner, would likely argue points of law and fact to support the challenge against the notices. The involvement of multiple advocates suggests a complex legal scenario with potentially significant implications for all parties involved.

In the case at hand, Shri Avinash Zargar, Advocate representing the petitioner, has filed a petition challenging a show cause notice dated 21.07.2020 (referred to as Annexure P-22) issued by respondent No. 2, along with recovery notices dated 18.09.2019 (referred to as Annexure P-14 to P-18) issued by respondent No. 6. The petitioner contests these notices on the grounds that the State Tax Officer, SGST, Circle Rewa, Rewa (M.P.), i.e., respondent No. 6, had already initiated proceedings for the recovery of interest on delayed payments under Section 50 of the Madhya Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (MPGST Act) through orders dated 25.05.2019 (Annexure P-10 & Annexure P-11).

Furthermore, the petitioner had filed two separate appeals against these orders before the Joint Commissioner, State Tax (Appeals) Rewa, Satna (M.P.). However, during the pendency of these appeals, respondent No. 2, the Joint Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Bhopal, issued the impugned show cause notice dated 21.07.2020 (Annexure P-22) under Section 73(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), covering the same period and amount of interest on delayed payment.

Shri Avinash Zargar, representing the petitioner, argued that according to Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the CGST Act, it is stipulated that where one proper officer, either under the State Goods and Services Tax (SGST) Act or the CGST Act, initiates proceedings in respect of a taxpayer, the other officer should refrain from initiating parallel proceedings for the same cause. Thus, the petitioner contends that the issuance of the impugned show cause notice by respondent No. 2 violates this provision, as the matter was already being dealt with by respondent No. 6.

The contention of the petitioner’s counsel is grounded on the principle of non-duplication of proceedings and the doctrine of res judicata, arguing that the initiation of parallel proceedings for the same matter is legally untenable and causes undue prejudice to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner seeks relief from the court against the impugned notices issued by the respondents.

In summary, Shri Avinash Zargar, Advocate for the petitioner, contends that the issuance of the show cause notice by respondent No. 2, while proceedings were already underway with respondent No. 6, contravenes the provisions of the CGST Act and is unjust to the petitioner, warranting judicial intervention.

The petitioner, represented by Shri Avinash Zargar, Advocate, has challenged a show cause notice dated 21.07.2020 and recovery notices dated 18.09.2019 issued by the respondents. The contention is that the State Tax Officer has already initiated proceedings for recovery of interest on delayed payment under Section 50 of the Madhya Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (MPGST Act), while the petitioner has filed appeals against these orders. However, during the pendency of these appeals, another authority, the Joint Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, issued a show cause notice under Section 73(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) for the same period and amount of interest on delayed payment.

Shri Avinash Zargar argued that according to Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, once proceedings have been initiated by one proper officer, no parallel proceedings can be initiated by another proper officer on the same subject matter. Therefore, the initiation of proceedings by the respondent No.2 is improper as the jurisdiction has already been assumed by the State Tax Officer under the MPGST Act.

On the other hand, Shri Gajendra Singh, representing the respondent No.2, argued that a writ petition against the show cause notice may not be entertained, suggesting that the petitioner should submit a reply to the notice and raise objections before the proper officer, who will consider and decide accordingly.

Shri Avinash Zargar clarified that the petitioner has already filed a reply to the show cause notice, but no decision has been made by the respondent No.2 on that reply.

The court directed that before proceeding further on the show cause notice, the respondent No.2 must first address and decide the objection raised by the petitioner in accordance with the law. It was also noted that if the petitioner has not yet filed a reply to the notice, they should do so, raising the objection mentioned.

With this directive, the petition was disposed of.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law