RAVI STEEL INDUSTRIES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The challenge in this Petition is to the impugned show cause notice dtd. 6/8/2024, read with the impugned notice dtd. 4/10/2023 issued by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, proposing to deny the Petitioner's credit under the CGST Act. The impugned notices issued by the Central Authorities relate to the period from 2017-2018 to 2022-2023.

(3.) Mr Jain, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, states that insofar as the years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 are concerned, the State Authorities had already issued notices to the Petitioner, which ended in the passing of an adjudication order. He pointed out that the Petitioner has appealed this adjudication order, and the appeal is pending. Therefore, relying upon the provisions of Sec. 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, Mr Jain submitted that since the State Authorities originally initiated proceedings, the Central Authorities would lack any jurisdiction to assess or adjudicate demands covering the same period. He relies on Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate GST 400 (SC)/2025 SCC OnLine SC 1700] to support this contention.