2026-VIL-1085-DEL
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-1085-DEL

SGST High Court Cases

GST – Concurrent jurisdiction and parallel proceedings – Receiving of fraudulent Input Tax Credit invoices from a supplier without actual supply of goods – SGST authorities initiated proceedings under Section 73 and passed order. Subsequently, CGST authorities initiated parallel proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 based on investigation revealing fraudulent Input Tax Credit through bogus transactions - Whether Central proceedings under Section 74 are barred by Section 6(2)(b) when State proceedings under Section 73 already dealt with same subject matter – HELD – The expression "same subject matter" refers to the particular liability or contravention sought to be adjudicated. Distinct infractions would not become same subject matter merely because they relate to same assessee, period or involve similar tax liability. Although both relate to Input Tax Credit from same supplier, the nature of allegation is materially different. State proceedings concerned general Input Tax Credit demand whereas Central proceedings were specifically founded on investigation regarding fraudulent availment through transactions without actual supply of goods - State proceedings did not adjudicate upon allegation that transactions were bogus. Petitioner failed to establish that very contravention of fraudulent availment through bogus transactions had already been adjudicated by State authority. Central proceedings are not ex facie barred by Section 6(2)(b). Impugned Orders are appealable under Section 107 of CGST Act - Where issues require examination of adjudication record and disputed questions of fact, High Court ordinarily does not exercise extraordinary jurisdiction in substitution of statutory appellate mechanism. Petitioner has not established exceptional circumstances warranting interference – The writ petition is dismissed. Petitioner shall be at liberty to avail statutory remedy of appeal under the CGST Act - Applicability of Section 6(2)(b) – HELD - The mere fact that both proceedings relate to the same Financial Year and involve Input Tax Credit of the same amount cannot by themselves establish identity of subject matter; for the statutory bar under Section 6(2)(b) to operate, it is necessary to establish identity of the liability or contravention which forms the subject matter of the two proceedings - The difference in GSTINs of supplier referred to in the two Central proceedings is a relevant circumstance while determining whether the proceedings relate to the same supplier and the same subject matter, but such difference cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive and the nature of the liability and the contravention alleged in the respective proceedings has to be examined - The statutory appellate authority, while examining the appeals, would be competent to consider the complete record and determine whether there is any duplication or overlapping liability in accordance with law.
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GST & Customs updates: Sep'26
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?