Jurisdiction prohibits State authorities from initiating proceedings when Central GST has already initiated consistent inquiries on the same subject matter under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Invoking the writ appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006, South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) – the appellant herein, has preferred this writ appeal calling in question legality, validity and correctness of judgment & order dated 9-10-2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (T)No.85/2023, by which its writ petition challenging the show cause notice dated 6^th/16^th January, 2023 issued by respondent No.2 herein under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, ‘the CGST Act’) has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge holding that the writ appellant is at liberty to file reply to the show cause notice and no case for interference is made out in writ jurisdiction.

2. The aforesaid challenge of the order passed by the learned Single Judge has been made on the following backdrop: -

3. The appellant SECL is engaged in mining activity and holding GSTIN: “22AADCS2066E9ZL” in terms of Section 22 of the CGST Act and on 27-8-2021, inspection under Section 67(1) of the CGST Act was carried by the Central GST authorities with the approval of competent authority for non-payment of GST under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) on Development Cess and Environment Cess for the period from July, 2017 to August, 2021. Thereafter, on 30-8-2021, memo was issued for payment of dues of GST under RCM by respondent No.1 and in the meanwhile, on 21-9-2021/13-10-2021 (Annexure P-1), summary of show cause notice in Form DRC-01 was issued by respondent No.3 along with statement in DRC-02 to which the appellant submitted reply on 26-11-2021 vide Annexure P-2. Thereafter, again on 21-2-2022/16-3-2022, DRC-01 with show cause notice was issued to the appellant, again without issuance of DRC-01A by respondent No.3 vide Annexure P-3 to which also the appellant submitted reply on 12-4-2022 vide Annexure P-4. However, on 27-4-2022, proceedings in pursuance of DRC-01 & DRC-02 were closed by respondent No.3 in view of second show cause notice dated 21-2-2022/16-3-2022, however, by order dated 13-6-2022 (Annexure P-5), second show cause notice was not proceeded with in light of reply dated 13-4-2022 without specifying any reason whatsoever and without any adjudication at all. Pre–show cause notice under Rule 142 (1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017 was issued by respondent No.1 in Form GST DRC- 01A dated 7/9-12-2022 (Annexure P-6) and reply was submitted by the noticee/appellant herein on 14-12-2022 (Annexure P-7). Thereafter, show cause notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act was issued by respondent No.2 on 6/16-1-2023 (AnnexureP-8) along with letters; summons and the statement of Mr. Abhishek Anand, Manager (Finance), which was challenged in the writ petition and which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge leading to filing of this writ appeal.

4. Mr. Rajeev Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the SECL/appellant herein, would submit that the show clause notice dated 6/16-1-2023 issued by the Additional Commissioner (Preventive) is barred by Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, as the earlier show cause notices which have already been issued, were already closed by orders dated 27-4-2022 and 13-6-2022. He would rely upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of G.K. Trading Company v. Union of India and others, 2020 SCC OnLine All 1907 and also upon the decision of the Madras High Court in the matter of Kuppan Gounder P.G. Natarajan v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence, New Delhi , 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 17053 to buttress his submission.

5. Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Advocate General appearing for the State of C