Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010021512024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/683/2024 SRI SUBHASH AGARWALLA SON OF HANSRAJ AGARWALLA, RESIDENT OF WARD NO.13, ANAND NAGAR PATH, P.O., P.S. AND DISTRICT-SIVASAGAR, ASSAM-786540 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND TAXATION, DISPUR ASSAM 2:THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX KAR BHAWAN G.S. ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 3:THE JOINT COMMISSIONER STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX SIVASAGAR ZONE SIVASAGAR ASSAM 4:THE COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX MILAN NAGAR LANE -F P.O- C.R BUILDING DIBRUGARH 786003 5:THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX Page No.# 2/3 DIBRUGARH DIVISION C.R BUILDING DIBRUGARH-78600 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K GUPTA, MS B SARMA,MR. R S MISHRA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FINANCE AND TAXATION, SC, GST BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 10.03.2026 Heard Shri R.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri B. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State GST and Ms. N. Kakati, learned counsel appearing on instructions of Shri S.C. Keyal, learned Senior Standing Counsel, CGST. 2. Considering the facts and circumstances and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. 3. As per the facts projected, a show cause notice dated 23.11.2022 was issued to the petitioner by the State GST alleging that during the financial year, 2017-2018, the petitioner had availed and utilised Input Tax Credit (ITC) to the tune of Rs. 14 lakhs (Rs. 14,14,657.00) which is in violation of Section 16 (4) of the CGST/ AGST. 4. During the pendency of the said process, the Central GST had also issued a demand cum show cause notice dated 27.04.2023 for the financial year 2017-2018 to 2019-2020 alleging that the petitioner had availed and utilised ITC in violation of the same provision of law. 5. Shri Mishra, the learned counsel has contended that for the same period and the same figure, two proceedings could not have been initiated.He has submitted that so far as the proceeding initiated by the Central GST is concerned, the same has Page No.# 3/3 culminated in an order in original dated 14.11.2023 confirming the demand of Rs. 1,31,56,521/- which includes interest. He accordingly submits that the CGST having adjudicated the aspect, the State GSTcould not have proceeded parallelly. 6. Shri Choudhury, the learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department has fairly submitted that there is no dispute with the factual proposition that there is an overlapping of the period. 7. That being the admitted position, this Court is of the view that since the proceeding initiated by the CGST has attained finality, there cannot be another proceeding on the same subject matter and for the same period by the State GST. Accordingly, the proceeding initiated againstthe respondent no. 3 vide show cause dated 23.11.2022 which culminated in the final order dated 11.12.2023 are interfered with and set aside. 8. Writ Petition accordingly stands allowed in the manner indicated aobve. JUDGE Comparing Assistant