$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010326552026 + W.P.(C) 10227/2026, CM APPL. 47373/2026 & CM APPL. 47374/2026 KAY BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Appearance not given. versus COMMSSIONER DELHI GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND TAXES AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sumit K. Batra and Ms. Priyanka Jindal, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHARAT PARASHAR O R D E R % 23.09.2026 1. Through the present Petition, the Petitioner seeks quashing of impugned assessment order dated 29.12.2025, passed under Section 73 of The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 („CGST Act‟), with respect to Financial Year 2021-2022. 2. Admittedly, the Petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal against the aforesaid order dated 29.12.2025. However, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that parallel and overlapping proceedings have been initiated and the subject matter of both proceedings is substantially the same. 3. He further submits that against the aforesaid order dated 29.12.2025 passed by the Competent Authority, the Petitioner has already filed an appeal and would be now required to file yet another This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/09/2026 at 11:51:50 appeal by depositing a pre-deposit amount. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the two proceedings do not pertain to the same subject matter and, therefore, there is no overlap between the proceedings. 5. This Court has considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. There is a distinction between “substantially same” and “same subject matter”. 6. On the bare perusal of Section 6(2)(b) of CGST Act, it is evident that it prohibits parallel proceedings on the same subject matter. Moreover, this issue can very well be examined by the Appellate Authority. 7. In these circumstances, the Petitioner is relegated to the statutory remedy of appeal against the aforesaid order dated 29.12.2025. 8. If the Petitioner files an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for the exclusion of the period during which the present Writ Petition has remained pending, the same shall be considered by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law. 9. The present Petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms. ANIL KSHETARPAL, J BHARAT PARASHAR, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2026/JYH/MN This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/09/2026 at 11:51:50