Hari Om Udyog Vs State of U.P. And 4 Others (Allahabad High Court)
Summary: Allahabad High Court declined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution with an order dated 3 December 2025 passed under Section 74 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 for Financial Year 2018-19. Hari Om Udyog contended that the State GST Authority lacked jurisdiction because proceedings had earlier been initiated by the Central GST Authority for the same tax period and material, attracting the bar under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST/UPGST Acts.
It further argued that the State authority lacked adequate material and had merely downloaded information from the common portal without verification. The State submitted that DGGI proceedings concerning 14 suppliers had been dropped for 11 suppliers and that no Central GST proceedings had been drawn concerning the remaining three suppliers—M/s Sai Nath Traders, Om Traders and Bharat Trading Company. The High Court held that whether adequate information existed to confirm the demand involved factual issues that need not be examined in writ proceedings when a statutory appellate remedy was available.
On the Section 6(2)(b) objection also, the Court noted the State’s case that proceedings were confined to three suppliers against whom no Central GST proceedings had been drawn and held that the issue could be examined in detail in appeal. Accordingly, writ interference was declined. However, since the writ petition had remained pending for more than two months, the Court permitted the petitioner to file the statutory appeal within two weeks and directed that, if so filed, it be entertained on merits without objection as to limitation.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the U.P. GST Authority and learned counsel for the revenue.
2. Challenge has been raised to the order dated 03.12.2025 passed by respondent no. 4 for the Financial Year 2018-2019, with respect to proceeding under section 74 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017.
3. Two fold submission have been advanced. First, proceedings having been earlier initiated under the CGST Act, 2017 by the Central GST Authority, the State GST Authority may not have any jurisdiction to initiate any further proceedings in respect to the same tax period and the same material, in view of the provisions under section 6(2)(b) of the State and the Central GST Act. Second, it has been vehemently urged, in any case there is no material available with the State GST Authority to initiate such provisions. At most, they have downloaded certain information from the common portal. Without verifying the same proceedings may have been drawn up. That is contrary to the law.
4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the State GST Authority submits, against information received with respect to 14 suppliers, proceedings were dropped with respect to 11 such suppliers, by the DGGI. With respect to remaining 3, M/S Sai Nath Traders, Om Traders and Bharat Trading Company, no proceedings were ever drawn by the Central GST Authority. Therefore, bar of section 6 (2)(b) of the State Act and the Central Act does not apply.
5. On the issue of existence of information, it has been submitted, that the objection is subjective. Information as is available on the common portal has also been made known to the petitioner. Finer details of the same may be raised, if required, be raised before the appeal forum.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, to the extent, no firm conclusion is possible to be drawn, if adequate information is available to the adjudicating authority to confirm the demand, and to the extent, such fact issue is not necessary to be gone into in writ proceedings, in face of statutory remedy of appeal available to the petitioner, we decline to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the present facts.
7. As to the objection raised on the strength of section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, the case of the petitioner stand on lessor footing inasmuch as according the State, it is only proceeding with respect to 3 suppliers, with respect to whom no proceedings may have been drawn by the CGST Authority. That issue may also be examined in detail, in appeal proceedings that the petitioner may undertake. Accordingly, interference claimed is declined, at this stage.
8. Then, learned counsel for the petitioner states, in view of the writ petition having remained pending for more than two months, liberty may be grated to the petitioner to file its statutory appeal, within reasonable time. To that there is no objection.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the observation, subject to the petitioner filing statutory appeal against the impugned order within a period of two weeks from today, the same may be entertained on merits without raising any objection as to the limitation.
