The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of M/S Meerut Steels v. Union of India & Ors. [Writ Tax No. 1855 of 2025, order dated October 28, 2025] held that the question of jurisdictional overlap in parallel proceedings under Central GST and State GST Acts is not a pure question of law but involves factual adjudication, and therefore the writ petition challenging the Central GST order before the High Court is not maintainable. The Petitioner may raise the issue through statutory appeal.
Facts:
M/S Meerut Steels (“the Petitioner”) is a GST-registered dealer who was subjected to proceedings by the Central GST authorities under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 for recovery of Input Tax Credit (ITC).
Union of India and others (“the Respondents’”), for the Central GST authorities, issued a show cause notice and passed an adjudication order demanding ITC reversal and penalty under central law.
The Petitioner contended that the subject matter of the proceedings before Central GST was the same as that already adjudicated by the State GST authorities under Sections 73 and 74 of the UPGST Act, 2017, claiming there is a lack of jurisdiction and violation of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act and CBEC Circular dated October 5, 2018, which mandate coordination to avoid duplicate proceedings.
The Respondent contended that the Central GST proceedings pertained to different ITC transactions relating to distinct supplies and that the order was passed after due notice and hearing, thus maintaining jurisdiction.
The Petitioner approached the High Court through a writ petition seeking quashing of the Central GST order claiming jurisdictional excess.
Issue:
Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition challenging Central GST proceedings on ground of jurisdictional overlap with prior State GST proceedings?
Held:
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Writ Tax No. 1855 of 2025 held as under:
- Observed that, determination of whether the subject matter of the State GST proceedings and Central GST proceedings are identical involves factual examination and is not a pure question of law suitable for writ jurisdiction.
- Noted that, the impugned order was passed after giving the Petitioner notice and opportunity of hearing, and does not suffer from any inherent lack of jurisdiction.
- Held that, jurisdictional overlap and coordination under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act and CBEC Circular dated October 5, 2018 requires detailed fact appraisal by the appellate authority.
- Declined interference under Article 226 of the Constitution, emphasizing that the petitioner must avail statutory remedy by filing appeal within three weeks, to be heard without limitation objection.
Our Comments:
The judgment prudently channels disputes over jurisdictional overlap between Central and State GST proceedings to statutory appeals rather than writ petitions, preserving the specialized adjudicatory framework the GST legislation envisages. It recognizes that this case involves only a question of fact and does not call for answering a question of law, and thus writ petition cannot be invoked.
In the case of Armour Security (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner CGST [(2025) 33 Centax 222 (SC)] the Supreme Court had ruled that, Section 6 of the CGST Act enshrines principles of single interface and cross-empowerment, balancing administrative convenience with enforcement efficacy. Both Central and State GST officers act as proper officers empowered to issue simultaneous orders, but formal proceedings cannot run in parallel on the same subject matter. The Court also called for cooperation between authorities and taxpayers to avoid duplication, including mandatory communication when overlapping inquiries exist, allocation of continuing authority, and taxpayer cooperation.
Relevant Provisions:
Section 6(1) & (2) of the CGST Act, 2017.
Authorisation of officers of State tax or Union territory tax as proper officer in certain circumstances
(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of this Act, the officers appointed under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act are authorised to be the proper officers for the purposes of this Act, subject to such conditions as the Government shall, on the recommendations of the Council, by notification, specify.
(2) Subject to the conditions specified in the notification issued under sub-section (1),
(a) where any proper officer issues an order under this Act, he shall also issue an order under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, as authorised by the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, as the case may be, under intimation to the jurisdictional officer of State tax or Union territory tax;
(b) where a proper officer under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act has initiated any proceedings on a subject matter, no proceedings shall be initiated by the proper officer under this Act on the same subject matter.
CLICK HERE FOR OFFICIAL JUDGMENT COPY
(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
