Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 78199 (ALL)

M/S BALAJI METAL INDUSTRIES v. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (ANTI- EVASION), CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX, AND ANOTHER

WTAX/3387/2025 · 2025-08-06

Prashant Bilgaiyan Registrar J Criminal, Shekhar B Saraf

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134146-DB Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 3387 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Balaji Metal Industries Respondent :- Additional Commissioner (Anti- Evasion), Central Goods And Services Tax, And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Aditya Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Parv Agarwal Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs: "I. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the case and quash the impugned notice dated 17.6.2025 issued under Section 74 of the CGST/UPGST Act by the respondent no.1 for the tax period April, 2018 to March 2024 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). II. Issue any such other and further orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." 3. Sri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that for the financial years 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2022-23, a show cause notice has already been issued for the years and the assessment is being completed for the financial year 2018-19 by the U.P. GST. In light of the same, he submits that the CGST cannot issue show cause notices for the same periods. 4. Upon considering the arguments made before us, we are of the view that since the matter is at the show cause notice stage, this information may be apprised by the petitioner to the authorities concerned in his reply/objection and the authorities concerned should consider the same in accordance with section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017. Counsel for the petitioner informed that representation had already been filed by the petitioner (annexure-1). We therefore, direct the CGST authority to decide the same within a period of one month from date after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and thereafter, decide the case. 5. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. 6. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the case. Order Date :- 7.8.2025 Dev (Praveen Kumar Giri J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf, J.) Digitally signed by :- DEV PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- DEV PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad