Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Maharashtra Information Technology Ltd. (MAHAIT), challenged a show-cause notice dated 28 June 2025 issued by the Central GST authorities, contending that the subject matter stood already covered and concluded by two earlier orders dated 22 April 2024 and 25 May 2025 issued by the State GST authorities. It argued that once State GST authorities had initiated and concluded proceedings on the same subject matter, Section 6 of the CGST Act, 2017 barred the Central authorities from initiating fresh proceedings, rendering the impugned show-cause notice wholly without jurisdiction. The Deputy Director, DGGI, Mumbai, filed an affidavit stating that the petitioner was neither the State Government nor an authority covered by the notifications relied upon, and that the scope of the two sets of investigations was materially different, so Section 6 had no application.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the show-cause notice issued by the Central GST authorities was 'wholly without jurisdiction' in view of Section 6 of the CGST Act, given the petitioner's reliance on concluded State GST proceedings.
  2. Whether such a jurisdictional challenge to a mere show-cause notice ought to be entertained in writ jurisdiction at the threshold, or left to be raised before the adjudicating authority.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Once Central Government authorities (in this case treated as covering the earlier State proceedings for this purpose) had already concluded proceedings by way of two orders, the State/Central GST official could not initiate fresh proceedings on the same subject matter, per Section 6 of the CGST Act.
  • The issuance of the impugned show-cause notice was therefore wholly without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed at the threshold.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The petitioner was neither the State Government nor covered by the notifications it relied upon, and the scope of the two investigations -- one an audit-based proceeding, the other a DGGI investigation -- was quite dissimilar, so Section 6 did not apply.
  • The petition, at the show-cause stage, should not be entertained; the petitioner should be directed to respond to the notice, since detailed factual review of both sets of proceedings was necessary.

Court Order / Findings

  • Whether Section 6 of the CGST Act barred the fresh proceedings required a detailed factual review of the scope of the two sets of proceedings, the character of the earlier order (apparently made in audit proceedings), and the petitioner's precise status -- none of which could be resolved on a bare reading of the notice.
  • The Court could not, on this material, conclude that the impugned show-cause notice was 'wholly without jurisdiction'; such a finding, if warranted at all, would have to await examination of the concluded and proposed proceedings.
  • Relying on a long line of Supreme Court precedent (Whirlpool, Coastal Container Transporters, Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, MTNL, Malladi Drugs, State of Maharashtra v. Greatship, United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon) and its own earlier orders in Rishi Techtex and Oberoi Constructions, the Court declined to entertain the challenge to the show-cause notice and relegated the petitioner to responding to it.
  • The time to file a reply was extended to 31 December 2025; if filed, the adjudicating authority was directed to decide the show-cause notice proceedings on merits, with all contentions -- including on Section 6 -- expressly kept open, and with liberty to challenge any adverse order before the appropriate forum.

Important Clarification

  • A challenge that a show-cause notice is 'wholly without jurisdiction' under Section 6 of the CGST Act (single-authority proceedings) will not be entertained in writ jurisdiction where it turns on a disputed, fact-intensive comparison of the scope of two sets of proceedings -- such questions are for the adjudicating authority in the first instance.
  • Dismissal of a writ petition against a show-cause notice on grounds of prematurity does not foreclose the jurisdictional objection; it can, and should, be raised and decided by the authority issuing the notice, with liberty to challenge the outcome thereafter.

Sections Involved

  • Section 6, CGST Act, 2017 -- cross-empowerment of officers under the CGST/SGST Acts and the bar on parallel proceedings by both Central and State tax authorities on the same subject matter.

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of with directions; not decided on merits -- the petitioner was relegated to responding to the show-cause notice with the Section 6 jurisdictional objection expressly kept open.

Case Details

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction; Writ Petition No. 11330 of 2025; Coram: Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna; Order dated 01.12.2025.

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.