Ms Maa Jagdambe Engineering Works vs Department Of Trade And Taxes Government Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors.

$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
nd
Date of decision: 02 April, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 3635/2026 & CM APPL. 17745/2026
M/S MAA JAGDAMBE ENGINEERING
WORKS
THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR
SH. NISHANT BANSAL
ADDRESS: 520 A/10, MAHALAXMI COMPOUND,
GT ROAD, DILSHAD GARDEN INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SHAHDARA, DELHI-110095
.....PETITIONER
Through: Mr. Anurag Kishore, (AOR)
with Ms. Ritika Srivastava, Mr.
Lakhan Kr. Mishra, Advocates
Versus
1. COMMISSIONER OF TRADE & TAXES
DEPARTMENT OF TRADE & TAXES, GOVERNMENT OF
NCT OF DELHI, VYAPAR BHAWAN, I.P. ESTATE,
NEW DELHI – 110002
.....RESPONDENT NO. 1
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER / GST OFFICER
WARD-82, ZONE-7, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE & TAXES,
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI, VYAPAR BHAWAN,
I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.
.....RESPONDENT NO. 2
3. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK,
NEW DELHI - 110001
.....RESPONDENT NO. 3
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AKASH
YADAV
Signing Date:22.04.2026
13:30:23
W.P.(C) 3635/2026 Page 1 of 6

4. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS
AND SERVICES TAX
DELHI EAST COMMISSIONERATE, C.R. BUILDING,
I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI – 110002
.....RESPONDENT NO. 4
Through: Mr. Vishal Chadha, Senior
Standing Counsel for R/CGST
Mr. Sumit K. Batra and Ms.
Priyanka Jindal, Advocates for
R-GNCTD
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J.
th
1. The challenge is to the order dated 18 December, 2025, passed
by respondent no. 2- State GST Authority, which is based on the
nd
Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 2 July, 2025.
2. Out of the total 17 entities in respect of which respondent no. 4-
th
CGST Authority issued the Show Cause Notice dated 28 June, 2025;
respondent no. 2 proceeded to assess the tax liability of the petitioner in
respect of 9 entities, which overlapped with the aforesaid Show Cause
Notice.
3. Since the Show Cause Notice issued by respondent no. 4 -CGST
th
Authority was prior in point of time, i.e., dated 28 June, 2025, as
compared to the Show Cause Notice issued by respondent no. 2 - State
nd
GST Authority dated 2 July, 2025, the petitioner objected to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AKASH
YADAV
Signing Date:22.04.2026
13:30:23
W.P.(C) 3635/2026 Page 2 of 6

continuation of proceedings against him in terms of the statutory
mandate under Section 6 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act,
2017 ( “CGST Act” ).
4. Instead of dealing with the same, the impugned order came to be
th
passed on 18 December, 2025, which is challenged before us.
5. Amongst other, primary contention raised by the petitioner is that
once the respondent no.4- CGST Authority was seized of the matter in
th
view of the Show Cause Notice dated 28 June, 2025 and the petitioner
had objected to the continuation of proceedings before respondent no.
2, in light of the statutory embargo under Section 6 of the CGST Act,
respondent no. 2 ought not to have proceeded to pass the impugned
order.
6. He would further submit that the impugned order is without
jurisdiction, as proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act have
already been initiated by respondent no. 4- CGST Authority for the
financial year 2020-2021, 2021-2022 and 2022-2023.
7. Learned counsel for respondent no. 4- CGST Authority states that
the proceedings initiated by the CGST Authority shall hold the field,
th
particularly, as the Show Cause Notice dated 28 June, 2025 issued by
respondent no. 4 is prior in point of time. He would claim that it was
incumbent upon the State Authority to keep their hands off in the matter
in question.
8. While countering both these submissions, learned counsel for
respondent no.2 states that the law is quite clear on the aforesaid issue.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AKASH
YADAV
Signing Date:22.04.2026
13:30:23
W.P.(C) 3635/2026 Page 3 of 6

According to him, even if the fact that the petitioner failed to bring the
Show Cause Notice and other details issued by respondent no. 4 – CGST
Authority to the notice of respondent no. 2 is ignored, the authority can
still proceed against the petitioner to the extent of the entities covered
under the Show Cause Notice. Further, respondent no. 4 – CGST
Authority can, in its proceedings, ignore those entities in respect of
which the State Authority has already carried out assessment and
adjudication. As such, he has sought dismissal of the present
proceedings on the ground that an alternate remedy of appeal is also
available to the petitioner.
9. Having considered the rival submissions, it is not in dispute that
th
in the Show Cause Notice dated 28 June, 2025 issued by respondent
no.4, there are in all nine entities which are overlapping. Admittedly the
said notice was issued prior to the Show Cause Notice issued by
nd
respondent no.2 i.e . on 2 July, 2025.
10. The said fact was very much brought to the notice of respondent
nd
no.2 by the petitioner through a communication dated 22 July, 2025,
which is placed on record at page nos.174 and 175 as Annexure P-4.
This objection has not been dealt with by respondent no.2 in the
impugned order.
11. We hardly see any counter on the part of the respondent no.2 to
the same, but for the very objection that Show Cause Notice issued by
respondent no.4- CGST Authority was not made available by the
petitioner to them.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AKASH
YADAV
Signing Date:22.04.2026
13:30:23
W.P.(C) 3635/2026 Page 4 of 6

12. It is not a fact in dispute that entire documents qua the Show
Cause Notice and reply are very much available on the GST portal, to
which, both the respondents i.e., respondent no.2 and respondent no.4
have access. In such an eventuality, in our opinion, respondent no. 2,
having regard to the statutory mandate of Section 6 of the CGST Act, is
duty-bound to examine the said portal so as to ascertain the material
available on record. Even otherwise, the petitioner had brought to the
notice of respondent no. 2 the details of the Show Cause Notice dated
th
28 June, 2025 issued by respondent no. 4 - CGST Authority.
13. The fact remains that an overlap of entities covered under the
Show Cause Notice issued by respondent no. 4 – CGST Authority is
borne out from the record and is not in dispute.
14. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we deem it appropriate to
th
quash and set aside the impugned order dated 18 December, 2025.
nd
15. As far as the Show Cause Notice dated 2 July, 2025 of
respondent no.2 issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act is concerned,
same is directed to be kept in abeyance.
16. We further direct respondent no.4 - CGST Authority to complete
the adjudication against the petitioner within a period of four months
from today and copy of the same be made available to respondent no.2,
so also to the petitioner.
17. Needless to clarify, once the order of adjudication is made
available to respondent no.2, it shall be open for respondent no.2 to take
nd
a call qua the Show Cause Notice dated 2 July, 2025 issued under
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AKASH
YADAV
Signing Date:22.04.2026
13:30:23
W.P.(C) 3635/2026 Page 5 of 6

Section 73 of the CGST Act having regard to the statutory mandate of
Section 6 of the CGST Act.
18. The petition stands allowed in above terms.
19. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
20. A copy of this Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE
(JUDGE)
AJAY DIGPAUL
(JUDGE)
APRIL 02, 2026/ ay/sk
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AKASH
YADAV
Signing Date:22.04.2026
13:30:23
W.P.(C) 3635/2026 Page 6 of 6