GST Update

 Desk of CA. Praveen Sharma – 1105  Series (CAPS) 

Delhi High Court IN THE CASE OF Case Star Traders v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax & Anr.

Different GST Allegations Permit Separate Proceedings; Section 16(2)(c) Challenge Rejected

Outcome: In favour of respondent 

Challenge: Star Traders contested the Central GST show-cause notice and adjudication order, alleging overlapping State proceedings.

Section 6(2)(b): The bar requires earlier State proceedings concerning the same subject matter.

State proceedings: These concerned inward-supply ITC discrepancies arising from return reconciliation for FY 2017–18.

Central proceedings: These arose from intelligence and a search, involving alleged invoices without actual supplies.

Distinct allegations: The evidence, allegations and nature of defaults differed; therefore, the proceedings were not on the same subject matter. 

Chronology immaterial: Once the subject matters differed, determining which proceeding began first was unnecessary.

Hearing opportunities: The Court rejected the natural-justice objection because repeated opportunities remained unutilised.

Section 16(2)(c): The constitutional challenge was rejected, following Maruti Enterprise and the Supreme Court’s order in Bhandari Scrap Traders.

Appeal remedy: The petitioner could raise objections before the statutory Appellate Authority; demand merits remained undecided.

Limitation: Any application seeking exclusion of time spent pursuing the writ under Section 14 of the Limitation Act must be considered according to law.

LINK: CA. Praveen Sharma on Linkedin

Best Regards,

CA Praveen Sharma

Mob. No. +91-98715 30610