2026-VIL-485-KAR
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-485-KAR

SGST High Court Cases

GST - Bar under Section 6(2) of the CGST Act, Order for provisional attachment - The petitioner claimed that the proceedings initiated by the Central authorities were barred under Section 6(2) of the CGST Act as the State GST authorities had already commenced proceedings on the same subject matter - HELD - There is no evidence of the State authorities having issued a show cause notice or commenced any adjudicatory proceedings. In the absence of such foundational material, the plea of statutory bar under Section 6(2) of the Act could not be examined in the abstract. A writ court cannot proceed on bald and unsubstantiated averments, particularly when jurisdictional objections are raised. The petitioner, who asserts the bar, is required to demonstrate by cogent material that proceedings have been formally initiated by State authorities and the subject matter is identical. In the absence of such material, the Court is unable to record even a prima facie finding on the applicability of Section 6(2) of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the impugned proceedings are barred under Section 6(2) of the Act was rejected as being premature, unsupported and devoid of material particulars - The plea of bar under Section 6(2) of the CGST Act is not substantiated by any material and cannot be examined at this stage, and the impugned action is not vitiated for want of pre-decisional hearing – The writ petition is dismissed - Violation of principles of natural justice - The petitioner contended that the impugned provisional attachment order was vitiated due to the violation of principles of natural justice, particularly when the petitioner was in judicial custody and no opportunity was afforded prior to passing the attachment order – HELD - The issue stood authoritatively settled by the Division Bench of the High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Central Tax v. Narasimhan Engineering Contractors Pvt. Ltd. The Court held that Section 83 of the CGST Act does not contemplate a pre-decisional hearing, and the statutory scheme provides a post-decisional remedy under Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules - The Supreme Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh has also clarified that provisional attachment is a protective measure and that safeguards are provided by way of objection and hearing post attachment. The contention of the petitioner that the absence of prior notice, particularly during the period of custody, vitiates the impugned action cannot be accepted, as the statutory framework itself contemplates immediate protective action followed by an opportunity of hearing, and the petitioner is not left remediless but is at liberty to invoke the said mechanism for redressal.
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GSTAT Appeal filed wrongly...
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Security-Code
New Code?

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Security-Code
New Code?

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?