SRI SHEKHAR CHANDRA PODDER vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

TRHC010006912025
Page 1 of 10


2026:THC:795-DB
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA


WP(C) No.285 of 2025


Sri Shekhar Chandra Podder, Prop. of M/S Shekhar Chandra Podder, S/o Lt.
Manindra Chandra Podder, Lane-03, Joynagar, Agartala, Tripura (West), PIN-
799001, having GSTIN- 16AEYPP1732Q1ZL represented by Sri Shekhar
Chandra Podder, aged about 68 years
..........Petitioner(s);
Versus

1.The Union of India represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance,
Revenue Department, Government of India, North Block, Raisina Hill, New
Delhi, P.O. North Block, Central Secretariat, P.S. Raisina Hill, PIN-110 001

2. The Director, Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of
Revenue), Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs

3. The Chief Commissioner of State Tax, Government of Tripura, P.N.
Complex, Gurkhabasti, P.O. New Capital Complex, P.S. New Capital
Complex, Agartala, Tripura (West), PIN-799010

4. The Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Government of Tripura, P.N.
Complex, Gurkhabasti, P.O. New Capital Complex, P.S. New Capital
Complex, Agartala, Tripura (West), PIN-799010

5. The Joint Commissioner, Ministry of Finance, Revenue Department,
Government of India, Central Goods and Services Tax, Tripura Division-1,
CGST Bhawan, Netaji Chowmuhani, Mantri Bari Road, P.O. Agartala, P.S.
West Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799 001

6. The Assistant Commissioner (Anti-Evision), Ministry of Finance, Revenue
Department, Government of India, Central Goods and Services Tax, Tripura
Division-1, CGST Bhawan, Netaji Chowmuhani, Mantri Bari Road, P.O.
Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799 001

7. The Superintendent of State Tax, Government of Tripura, Charge-III, P.O.
Agartala, P.S. East Agartala, Tripura (West), PIN-799 001

8. The Superintendent (Enforcement), Ministry of Finance, Revenue
Department, Government of India, Central Goods and Services Tax, Tripura
rd
Division-1, Jackson Gate Building, 3 Floor, Lenin Sarani, P.O. Agartala, P.S.
West Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799 001

9. The Superintendent (Anti-Evasion), Ministry of Finance, Revenue
Department, Government of India, Central Goods and Services Tax, Tripura
Division-1, CGST Bhawan, Netaji Chowmuhani, Mantri Bari Road, P.O.
Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799 001
.........Respondent(s)

TRHC010006912025
Page 2 of 10


2026:THC:795-DB

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bibhal Nandi Majumder, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Samrat Sarkar, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bidyut Majumder, Deputy SGI,
Mr. P. Gautam, Sr. G.A.,
Mr. Ratan Datta, Advocate,
Ms. Saswati Nag, Advocate.

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT


Date of hearing : 30.06.2026
Date of Judgment & Order : 30.06.2026
Whether fit for reporting : YES
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

(Per M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
Heard Mr. Bibhal Nandi Majumder, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Mr. Samrat Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ratan
Datta, learned counsel for respondent No.6, Mr. Bidyut Majumder, learned
Deputy SGI for respondents No.1, 2, 5, 8 & 9 and Mr. P. Gautam, learned
Senior Government Advocate for respondents No.4 & 7.
2. Perused the pleadings and Counter Affidavits of the parties.

Reliefs sought for in the Writ Petition:
3. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged certain
notifications (A-7, 9 and 10) issued by the Govt. of India, Demand-cum-Show
Cause Notice, bearing Reference No: GEXCOM/ADJN/GST/3073/2024-
ADJN-O/COMMR-CGST-AGARTALA, dt.22.07.2024 (Annexure-56),
issued by the Ld. Joint Commissioner, Central GST Commissionerate,
Agartala (Respondent No.5) to the Petitioner, under Section 74(1) of the
CGST/TSGST Act and Order-in-Original No.12/GST/JC(HQRS)/2024-25,
dt.03.02.2025 (Annexure-78), passed by the Ld. Joint Commissioner, Central
GST Commissionerate, Agartala etc.

TRHC010006912025
Page 3 of 10


2026:THC:795-DB

4. However as regards the challenge to the notifications issued by
the Government of India vide Annexures 7, 9 & 10 are concerned, no
argument has been advanced and it is not necessary for us therefore to deal
with the validity of the said notifications, and therefore we do not propose to
go into the said aspect.

The Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dt.22.07.2024:
5. The main question in the Writ Petition relates to the validity of a
Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dt.22.07.2024 [Annexure-56] issued by the
Joint Commissioner, Central GST Commissionerate, Agartala [respondent
No.5 to the Writ Petition] under Section 74(1) of the Central Goods and
Services Tax Act, 2017 [“Act”, for short ], and the consequent impugned
Order-in-Original dt.03.02.2025 [Annexure-78] passed by the said officer.
6. It is not in dispute that the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice
issued on 22.07.2024 by the respondent No.5 pertains to four financial years
i.e. 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21.

Submission of senior counsel for the petitioner:
7. It is the contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
that as regards the financial year 2017-18, the initiation of proceedings
through the show cause notice dt.22.07.2024 by the respondent No.5 is
impermissible in view of the fact that the said show cause notice was issued
for that year beyond the period of five years from 31.12.2018, the due date for
furnishing of annual return for the said financial year, as laid down in Section
74(10) of the Act of 2017. In other words it was issued for that year after the 5

TRHC010006912025
Page 4 of 10


2026:THC:795-DB
year period provided in the Act has expired and so it was issued without
jurisdiction.
8. As regards the financial years 2018-19 and 2019-20, Senior
Counsel for the petitioner contends that notice had been issued by the SGST
authorities on 24.02.2025 [Vol-VII Page 1092-1095] mentioning about
mismatches between Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed in Electronic Credit
Ledger (ECL) than those declared in the annual return, and he points out that
these proceedings were admittedly dropped on 08.07.2025 by the SGST
authorities.
9. He contends that in the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice
dt.22.07.2024 issued by respondent No.5, he has also covered the aspect of
excess availment of ITC for 2018-19 and 2019-20 [Vol-VII Page 1157 –
Counter Affidavit of respondents No.1, 2, 5, 8 & 9].
10. He further contends that for the financial year 2018-19 and 2019-
20, the CGST authorities cannot, in view of Section 6(2)(b) of the Act of
2017, go into this aspect of excess availment of ITC because the subject
matter is already covered in the show cause notices issued by SGST
authorities to the petitioner referred to supra.

Submission of counsel for respondents:
11. Counsel for the respondents however contends that as regards the
financial year 2017-18, the respondent No.5 cannot be said to be wrong in
issuing the show cause notice because of a notification No.06/2020
dt.03.02.2020 [Annexure-7] issued under Section 168A of the Act of 2017. He
also supported the action of respondent no.5 in including the financial years
2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 in the said show cause notice.

TRHC010006912025
Page 5 of 10


2026:THC:795-DB
Consideration by the Court:
12. We shall first deal with the plea of petitioner regarding the
validity of action of respondent no.5 in initiating proceedings for the year
2017-18.
13. A reading of the notification No.06/2020 dt.03.02.2020
[Annexure-7] indicates that the Central Government had issued the said
notification on the recommendation of the GST Council and in the said
notification, the time limit for furnishing of the annual return for the period
2017-18 was extended up to 07.02.2020 for the State of Tripura.
14. In our opinion, this notification is intended for the benefit of
assesses, if they had not already filed their annual return for 2017-18 financial
year by 31.12.2018.
15. This notification is not intended to benefit the respondent CGST
department, and extend for their benefit the time limit prescribed in Section
74(10) of the Act of 2017 to initiate proceedings beyond the period of 5 years
from the date of filing of the annual return for 2017-18 i.e., beyond
31.12.2023.
16. No other notification issued by the Central Government under
Section 168A of the Act of 2017 extending the time limit for exercising
powers under Section 74 of the Act of 2017, has been brought to our notice by
the counsel for the respondents.
17. In the Counter Affidavit filed by the respondents, it is also stated
that during the year 2019-20, the country as well as the entire world was
facing unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic, due to which normal business and
administrative functioning were severely disrupted, and extension of due dates

TRHC010006912025
Page 6 of 10


2026:THC:795-DB
were granted in public interest to mitigate hardships faced by taxpayers and to
ensure compliance.
18. But no notification issued by the Central Government under
Section 168A of the Act of 2017 for the period covered by COVID-19
extending the time limit for initiation and completion of proceedings under
Section 74 of the Act of 2017, has been filed by the respondents or placed
before this Court.
19. In para 4 of the Counter Affidavit filed by the respondents, it is
also stated that there was initiation of investigation by CGST authorities for
the financial year 2017-18 on 22.03.2021, and reliance is placed on a notice
dt.22.03.2021 [Annexure-16] issued by the CGST authority to the petitioner.
20. The said document mentions that there was a wrongful deposit
allegedly made by the petitioner of VAT in GST regime in contravention of
the Act of 2017.
21. This document does not amount to initiation of proceedings for
the purpose of Section 6(2)(b) of the Act of 2017 at all, because it is not one
commencing any adjudicatory proceeding by way of issuance of a show cause
notice, and at best this can be construed as only a notice for the purpose of
scrutiny.
22. It cannot also be construed as a notice under Section 74 of the
Act for the reason that as directed by the notification dt.13.12.2023 of the GST
Policy Wing, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, Department of
Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Section 74(1) of the Act
of 2017 can be invoked only in cases where there is a fraud or willful
misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax on the part of a taxpayer,

TRHC010006912025
Page 7 of 10


2026:THC:795-DB
and there is no such allegation contained in the notice dt.22.03.2021 issued by
the CGST authorities, and for the first time such allegation was made only in
the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dt.22.07.2024 issued by the fifth
respondent.
23. So as far as financial year 2017-18 is concerned, the action of the
respondent No.5 in issuing the said show cause notice and passing the
impugned order in original on 03.02.2025 is without jurisdiction and contrary
to the Act.
24. Regarding 2018-19 and 2019-20, it is admitted by the
respondents in the Counter Affidavit at para 25 that Section 6(2)(b) of the Act
of 2017 prohibits initiation of parallel proceedings when proceedings on the
same subject matter have already been initiated by the State GST authorities,
and that the identity of subject matter is a mandatory pre-condition for
invoking the statutory bar.
25. This is also the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in M/s
Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East
1
Commissionerate & Another . In para 96, the Supreme Court has summarized
the legal position as under:
“ 96. We summarize our final conclusion as under: -

i. Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the CGST Act and the
equivalent State enactments bars the “initiation of any
proceedings” on the “same subject matter”.

ii. Any action arising from the audit of accounts or detailed
scrutiny of returns must be initiated by the tax administration to
which the taxpayer is assigned.


1
Special Leave Petition (C) No.6092 of 2025 dt.14.08.2025

TRHC010006912025
Page 8 of 10


2026:THC:795-DB
iii. Intelligence based enforcement action can be initiated by any
one of the Central or the State tax administrations despite the
taxpayer having been assigned to the other administration.

iv. Parallel proceedings should not be initiated by other tax
administration when one of the tax administrations has already
initiated intelligence-based enforcement action.

v. All actions that are initiated as a measure for probing an inquiry
or gathering of evidence or information do not constitute
“proceedings” within the meaning of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST
Act.

vi. The expression “initiation of any proceedings” occurring in
Section 6(2)(b) refers to the formal commencement of adjudicatory
proceedings by way of issuance of a show cause notice, and does
not encompass the issuance of summons, or the conduct of any
search, or seizure etc.

vii. The expression “subject matter” refers to any tax liability,
deficiency, or obligation arising from any particular contravention
which the Department seeks to assess or recover.

viii. Where any two proceedings initiated by the Department seek to
assess or recover an identical or a partial overlap in the tax
liability, deficiency or obligation arising from any particular
contravention, the bar of Section 6(2)(b) would be immediately
attracted.

ix. Where the proceedings concern distinct infractions, the same
would not constitute a “same subject matter” even if the tax
liability, deficiency, or obligation is same or similar, and the bar
under Section 6(2)(b) would not be attracted.

x. The twofold test for determining whether a subject matter is
“same” entails, first, determining if an authority has already
proceeded on an identical liability of tax or alleged offence by the
assessee on the same facts, and secondly, if the demand or relief
sought is identical. ” (emphasis supplied)

TRHC010006912025
Page 9 of 10


2026:THC:795-DB
26. As rightly contended by learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner, in the notices issued by SGST authorities on 24.02.2025 [Vol-VII
at Page 1092-1095], there is mention about mismatches between ITC availed
in Electronic Credit Ledger than declared in annual return, which proceedings
were admittedly dropped on 08.07.2025 by SGST authorities.
27. But in the show cause notice issued on 22.07.2024 by the
respondent No.5, he has also included the aspect of excess availment of ITC
for 2018-19 and 2019-20, though it is the subject matter of the show cause
notices and proceedings already issued by the SGST authorities.
28. In our opinion, in view of the bar contained in Section 6(2)(b) of
the Act, the respondent no.5 could not have initiated proceedings into this
aspect of excess availment of ITC for these two financial years which
aspect/subject matter is already covered in the show cause notices issued by
the SGST authorities to the petitioner as mentioned above. So to that extent
his show cause notice and impugned order are without jurisdiction.
29. However as regards the short payment of GST aspect which is
contained in the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dt.22.07.2024 issued by the
respondent no.5 for 2018-19 and 2019-2020, this aspect was not subject
matter of the show cause notices and proceedings issued by SGST authorities
for those years.
30. Therefore to that extent, the action of the respondent No.5 cannot
be found fault with.
31. Coming to the financial year 2020-21, we may point out that the
notice of the SGST authority to the petitioner dt.16.07.2021 relates to

TRHC010006912025
Page 10 of 10


2026:THC:795-DB
mismatch of tax liability indicated by the petitioner in GSTR-1B and
GSTR-3B.
32. This is not a subject matter of the Demand-cum-Show Cause
Notice dt.22.07.2024 issued by the fifth respondent.
33. Therefore to that extent also, one cannot find fault with the
respondent No.5 in initiating proceedings by issuance of Demand-cum-Show
Cause Notice.
34. For the aforesaid reasons, and since the show cause notice
dt.22.07.2024 and the impugned order in original dt.3.2.2025 passed by the
respondent No.5 cover the financial years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and
2020-21, and since we have held supra that in respect of some financial years
on some aspects, the respondent no.5 had no jurisdiction, we set aside the
show cause notice dt.22.07.2024 to that extent and the Order-in-Original
dt.03.02.2025 passed by the respondent No.5 in its entirety, and remit the
matter back to the respondent No.5 to pass a fresh order within 3 months only
on the aspects which he is entitled to do as per this Order after hearing the
petitioner afresh. All consequential actions/orders of respondents are also set
aside. The petitioner is granted liberty to contend before respondent No.5 that
the conditions precedent for invoking Section 74 do not exist by filing
additional reply to the show cause notice within 6 weeks from today.
35. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
36. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(BISWAJIT PALIT, J) (M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ)

Pijush/
PIJUSH KANTI NAG
Digitally signed by PIJUSH KANTI NAG
Date: 2026.07.01 13:53:32 +05'30'