( 2025:HHC:12143-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.616 of 2025 Decided on: 1st May, 2025 M/s Prime Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. .......Petitioner versus State of H.P and another ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate with Mr.Manik Sethi, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Navlesh Verma, Addl. A.G and Ms.Sharmila Patial, Addl. A.G. for respondent No.1. Mr. Vijay K. Arora, Senior Advocate with Ms.Aastha Kohli, Advocate for respondent No.2. Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral) The petitioner being aggrieved by the initiation of parallel proceedings by respondent No.1 as well as respondent No.2 by virtue of notice issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, has approached this Court by filing the instant petition for grant of the following substantive relief:- 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ( 2025:HHC:12143-DB ) 2 “A) A writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the summons dated 13.12.2024 (Annexure P-8), issued by the Respondent no. 2 and consequential action of blocking the credit ledger of the petitioner on 01.01.2025 on the GST Portal on dated 01.01.2025 (Annexure P-10) & 06.01.2025 (Annexure P-14) as the same are without jurisdiction and in the teeth of Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017.” 2. On 17.03.2025, the Court passed the following order:- “Even though the State has filed instructions dated 15.3.2025, however we are of the considered view that the stand of the respondent-State must be reflected on affidavit. Therefore, necessary affidavit be filed within two weeks. List on 10.4.2025. In the meanwhile, reply on behalf of respondent No.2 be also filed.” 3. In compliance to the aforesaid orders, respondent No.1 has filed affidavit, wherein it is averred that the summon/notice had been issued to the petitioner on 03.08.2021 by the Assistant Commissioner State Taxes and Excise-cum-proper Officer, to which, the petitioner had submitted its reply on 17.08.2021. It is further averred that in the instant case, respondent No.2 had initiated the proceedings against the petitioner much later than the proceedings initiated by respondent No.1. Accordingly, respondent No.1 has ( 2025:HHC:12143-DB ) 3 submitted that petitioner be directed to let respondent No.1 conclude the proceedings under the CGST/HPGST Rules, 2017. 4. The record reveals that respondent No.2 i.e. Senior Intelligence Officer, DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit has now transferred the proceedings and the same are pending before the 1st respondent, as is evident from letter dated 24.04.2025, which reads thus:- “In continuation to this office letter No. 6533 dated, 15th March, 2025 on the above. In this context, it is submitted that the instant case has already been transferred to this office by the Respondent No. 2 i.e. Senior Intelligence Officer, DGGI Meerut Zonal Unit, Ground Floor, Opp. Saheed Park, Delhi Road, Meerut vide letter No.DGGI/INV/GST/2295/2021/Pt IV/4910 dated 28.02.2025 (copy enclosed).” 5. Since the proceedings now stand transferred by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1, the instant petition has achieved its purpose and is disposed of accordingly. 6. As regards the ‘blocked credit ledger’, learned counsel for respondent No.2, on instructions, submits that the same stands unblocked and such averments has specifically been made in para 3 of the reply. The relevant portion thereof reads as under:- “Further, communication dated 23.12.2024 received from the petitioner, was considered and its investigation has already been transferred to respondent No.1 and unblocked the Input Tax Credit.” ( 2025:HHC:12143-DB ) 4 7. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any. ( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ) Judge May 01, 2025 ( Sushil Kukreja ) (naveen) Judge