Krishna Industries Vs Commissioner of Central Goods And Services Tax And Ors. (Delhi High Court)
Parallel GST Proceedings Not Barred Merely Because They Relate to the Same Assessee, Year and ITC Amount-Identity of the Contravention Is Decisive
The Delhi High Court considered whether the Central GST authorities could initiate proceedings under section 74 of the CGST Act when the State GST authorities had already initiated proceedings under section 73 concerning input-tax credit claimed from a supplier bearing the trade name M.R. Enterprises.
The petitioner, a manufacturer of plastic products, had allegedly availed input-tax credit from M.R. Enterprises. For FY 2017-18, the State GST authorities issued a show-cause notice dated 23-09-2023, which included a proposal concerning ITC claimed from the said supplier.
After an earlier round of writ proceedings, the State authority was directed to grant a personal hearing and pass a fresh speaking order. A fresh adjudication order was consequently passed on 29-07-2024.
Thereafter, the Central GST authorities issued two show-cause notices dated 02-08-2024 and 04-08-2024 under section 74. These notices were based on DGGI investigation and alleged that M.R. Enterprises had issued invoices without actual supply of goods and had fraudulently passed inadmissible ITC to various recipients, including the petitioner.
The two proceedings referred to suppliers trading as M.R. Enterprises but bearing different GSTINs:
- 07BDIPS1163G1ZI; and
- 07EJVPS7789Q1ZC.
The proceedings culminated in orders dated 31-01-2025 and 10-01-2025. Each order confirmed a demand of ₹6,12,000, together with applicable interest and penalty.
Petitioner Alleged Repeated Proceedings on the Same Subject Matter
The petitioner contended that the subsequent proceedings by the Central authorities were prohibited by section 6(2)(b) because the State authority had already initiated and completed proceedings concerning the same ITC.
It was argued that all the proceedings concerned:
- The same assessee;
- The same financial year;
- The same supplier’s trade name; and
- The same disputed ITC of ₹6,12,000.
According to the petitioner, the Department could not overcome the statutory bar merely by changing the provision from section 73 to section 74 or by describing the transactions as fraudulent.
The petitioner further contended that its detailed reply dated 31-08-2024 was not considered. In fact, one of the orders recorded that no reply had been filed. The relied-upon investigation material was also allegedly not supplied.
The petitioner maintained that the transactions were genuine, goods had actually been received and there was no fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression justifying the invocation of section 74.
“Same Subject Matter” Means Same Liability or Contravention
The High Court observed that section 6(2)(b) seeks to prevent one GST authority from initiating proceedings where another GST authority has already initiated proceedings on the same subject matter.
Following the Supreme Court decision in Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, the Court held that the expression “same subject matter” must be examined with reference to the specific liability, deficiency or contravention sought to be adjudicated.
Where both proceedings concern the same liability or contravention, the statutory bar would apply. However, distinct infractions do not become the same subject matter merely because they relate to:
- The same taxpayer;
- The same tax period;
- A similar tax liability; or
- A common transactional background.
The Court observed that the State proceedings were initiated under section 73 and included a demand concerning ITC claimed from M.R. Enterprises. The subsequent Central proceedings under section 74 were founded upon investigation and intelligence allegedly revealing that invoices had been issued without actual supply of goods and that the ITC had been availed fraudulently.
Although there was a factual connection between the proceedings, the nature of the allegation underlying the Central proceedings was materially different.
Different Statutory Sections Are Not Conclusive
The High Court accepted the petitioner’s general proposition that the Department cannot circumvent section 6(2)(b) merely by changing the provision under which proceedings are initiated.
However, the converse was equally true. The question could not be decided merely by comparing section 73 with section 74. The authority or Court must examine the underlying liability and alleged contravention.
Thus, neither the difference in statutory provisions nor their similarity is conclusive. What matters is whether the very same transaction, allegation and liability were already the subject of the earlier proceedings.
Same Trade Name and Same Amount Not Sufficient
The Court noticed that the two Central proceedings referred to M.R. Enterprises bearing different GSTINs. A difference in GSTIN was a relevant circumstance in determining whether the suppliers and transactions were identical, though it was not by itself conclusive.
Similarly, the fact that both proceedings concerned an ITC amount of ₹6,12,000 and the same financial year did not automatically establish identity of subject matter.
The petitioner had not placed sufficient material before the High Court to demonstrate that the State authority had already adjudicated the specific allegation of bogus invoices and non-supply of goods forming the basis of the Central proceedings under section 74.
The Court therefore held that, on the material produced in the writ proceedings, the petitioner had failed to establish that the Central proceedings were ex facie barred by section 6(2)(b).
Disputed Facts Must Be Examined in Statutory Appeal
The petitioner’s remaining objections concerned non-consideration of its reply, non-supply of relied-upon documents, genuineness of purchases, actual receipt of goods, absence of fraud and alleged duplication of the two Central demands.
The Court held that these issues required examination of the complete adjudication records and disputed questions of fact. They could appropriately be considered by the statutory appellate authority under section 107.
The existence of an alternative remedy does not make a writ petition inherently non-maintainable. However, when the dispute requires detailed scrutiny of documents and factual findings, the High Court ordinarily would not substitute its writ jurisdiction for the appellate mechanism.
The writ petition was therefore dismissed, with liberty to file statutory appeals against both adjudication orders. The appellate authority was directed to consider all contentions independently, including duplication, overlapping demands, non-consideration of reply, non-supply of documents, improper invocation of section 74 and the merits of tax, interest and penalty.
Author’s Comments
The judgment lays down an important test for the operation of section 6(2)(b). The identity of the assessee, financial year, supplier’s trade name or disputed tax amount is not sufficient. The taxpayer must demonstrate identity of the underlying transaction, liability and contravention.
At the same time, the judgment does not authorise the Centre and State to repeatedly investigate or assess the same transaction by merely changing the provision from section 73 to section 74. The Court expressly recognised that a change in statutory label cannot defeat the protection under section 6(2)(b). If the earlier proceeding had already examined the allegation of invoices without supply of goods, the subsequent proceeding may still be barred.
The case also exposes a possible duplication within the two Central proceedings themselves. Both orders reportedly confirmed ₹6,12,000, though the Department claimed that they related to different GSTINs and separate investigation material. The Court left this factual issue open for examination in appeal.
For successfully invoking section 6(2)(b), a taxpayer should prepare a transaction-wise comparison of the earlier and later proceedings, including supplier GSTIN, invoice numbers, tax period, ITC amount, precise allegation, relied-upon documents and the findings recorded in the earlier order. A broad assertion that both proceedings concern the same supplier or year may not be sufficient.
Lastly, the dismissal of the writ petition does not amount to confirmation of the tax demand. The High Court expressly refrained from deciding whether the transactions were genuine, goods were actually received, section 16 conditions were fulfilled or fraud existed. All these issues remain open for independent adjudication in the statutory appeal under section 107.
Cases Discussed
- Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate & Anr. (Supreme Court)
- Metalax Industries v. GST Officer, Ward 66 & Ors. (Delhi High Court)
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. The issue which arises for consideration in the present Petition is whether the proceedings initiated by the Central Goods and Services Tax authorities under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [“CGST Act”] are liable to be interdicted on the ground that the State Goods and Services Tax authorities had earlier initiated proceedings under Section 73 of the CGST Act in respect of the Petitioner concerning Input Tax Credit [“ITC”] allegedly availed from M.R. Enterprises.
2. By way of the present Petition, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the Show Cause Notices dated 02.08.2024 and 04.08.2024 issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, as well as the Orders dated 31.01.2025 and 10.01.2025 passed pursuant thereto.
3. The principal grievance of the Petitioner is that the aforesaid proceedings constitute proceedings on the same subject matter which had already been dealt with by the State GST authorities and are, therefore, barred by Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. The Petitioner also assails the Impugned Orders on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice, non-consideration of its reply, non-supply of relied upon documents and alleged non-application of mind.
FACTUAL MATRIX
4. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present Petition, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
5. The Petitioner is a proprietorship concern of Mr. Mohan Lal and is stated to be engaged in the manufacture of plastic products. The Petitioner was registered under the CGST Act as well as the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [“DGST Act”] with GSTIN No. 07ACLPL9679D1Z2. Its principal place of business is stated to be situated at Plot No. E-23, Pocket-E, Sector-5, DSIIDC, Bawana, North West Delhi.
6. The dispute in the present Petition relates to ITC allegedly availed by the Petitioner on the basis of invoices issued by M.R. Enterprises. According to the Central GST authorities, the investigation conducted by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence [“DGGI”] revealed that M.R. Enterprises had passed on inadmissible ITC to various recipients without actual supply of goods. The Petitioner figures amongst the recipients against whom proceedings were consequently initiated.
7. Prior thereto, proceedings had been initiated by the State GST authorities in respect of the Petitioner for Financial Year 2017-18. The State authority issued a Show Cause Notice dated 23.09.2023 proposing, inter alia, a demand in relation to ITC claimed by the Petitioner from M.R. Enterprises. The Petitioner submitted its reply dated 10.10.2023 along with supporting documents.
8. An order dated 28.12.2023 came to be passed by the State GST authority. The Petitioner thereafter approached this Court by way of a writ petition. By order dated 05.03.2024, this Court directed the proper officer to re-adjudicate the Show Cause Notice after affording an opportunity of personal hearing and to pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law within the period prescribed under Section 75(3) of the CGST Act.
9. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the State GST authority passed a fresh order dated 29.07.2024. The controversy between the parties principally concerns the effect of the said order on the subsequent proceedings initiated by the Central GST authorities. According to the Petitioner, the State proceedings had already dealt with the ITC claimed from M.R. Enterprises and, consequently, the Central GST authorities could not subsequently initiate proceedings in respect thereof. The Respondents, on the other hand, submit that the State proceedings were under Section 73 of the CGST Act and concerned a different allegation, whereas the subsequent proceedings under Section 74 were founded upon intelligence gathered during investigation regarding fraudulent availment of ITC through transactions not accompanied by actual supply of goods.
10. In the meantime, the DGGI issued a Show Cause Notice dated 02.08.2024 to the Petitioner under Section 74 of the CGST Act in respect of alleged inadmissible ITC availed from M.R. Enterprises bearing GSTIN No. 07BDIPS1163G1ZI. The notice was founded upon investigation and intelligence material gathered by the DGGI regarding availment and passing on of inadmissible ITC through invoices allegedly not accompanied by actual supply of goods.
11. A further Show Cause Notice dated 04.08.2024 was issued by Respondent No.1, CGST Delhi North, under Section 74 of the CGST Act in respect of alleged ineligible ITC availed by the Petitioner from M.R. Enterprises bearing GSTIN No. 07EJVPS7789Q1ZC. The Petitioner was included amongst the recipients against whom inadmissible ITC was proposed to be recovered.
12. The Petitioner states that it submitted a reply dated 31.08.2024 to the Show Cause Notices along with supporting documents. According to the Petitioner, the said reply specifically brought to the notice of the adjudicating authorities the earlier proceedings conducted by the State GST authority and the alleged bar contained in Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. The Petitioner further asserted that the transactions were genuine, that the goods had actually been received at its premises and that there was no fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts so as to warrant invocation of Section 74 of the CGST Act.
13. The proceedings initiated pursuant to the Show Cause Notice dated 04.08.2024 culminated in the Order dated 10.01.2025. The said order records the investigation concerning M.R. Enterprises and the recipients falling within the jurisdiction of CGST Delhi North. The adjudicating authority ultimately confirmed the demand of Rs.6,12,000/- towards alleged ineligible ITC, along with applicable interest and penalty.
14. The proceedings initiated pursuant to the Show Cause Notice dated 02.08.2024 culminated in the Order dated 31.01.2025. In the said order, the adjudicating authority considered the material gathered during investigation and confirmed, inter alia, the demand of Rs.6,12,000/- against the Petitioner towards inadmissible ITC, together with applicable interest and penalty.
15. The Petitioner has, consequently, approached this Court challenging both the Show Cause Notices as well as the Orders dated 10.01.2025 and 31.01.2025.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
16. Contentions of the Petitioner
16.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the proceedings initiated by the Central GST authorities are barred by Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. According to learned counsel, the State GST authority had already initiated proceedings concerning the ITC claimed by the Petitioner from M.R. Enterprises and the said proceedings had culminated in the fresh order dated 29.07.2024. Thus, according to him, the subsequent proceedings initiated by the Central authorities pertain to the same subject matter.
16.2. It was further submitted that the two Central proceedings have resulted in duplication of proceedings and overlapping demands. It was submitted that both proceedings concern the same assessee, the same Financial Year and the same alleged ITC of Rs.6,12,000/-. Mere change in the statutory provision invoked cannot enable the authorities to initiate proceedings in respect of a subject matter which had already been dealt with by the State GST authority.
16.3. Reliance was placed upon Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate & Anr.1, as well as the judgment of this Court in Metalax Industries v. GST Officer, Ward 66 & Ors., decided on 26.11.2024.
16.4. It was further submitted that the reply dated 31.08.2024 furnished by the Petitioner was not duly considered. Particular emphasis was placed upon the observation contained in the Order dated 10.01.2025 that the noticees had not submitted any reply, despite the Petitioner having submitted its reply along with supporting documents. It was submitted that such non-consideration constitutes violation of the principles of natural justice.
16.5. It was also contended that the relied-upon investigation material was not supplied to the Petitioner and that the Impugned Orders are non-speaking orders. It was submitted that the Petitioner had specifically disputed the allegation of bogus transactions and asserted that the goods had actually been received at its premises.
16.6. It was lastly submitted that there was no fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts so as to justify invocation of Section 74 of the CGST Act. The demand and penalty imposed upon the Petitioner are, therefore, stated to be unsustainable.
17. Contentions of the Respondents
17.1. Per contra, learned standing counsel for the Respondents submitted that the challenge based upon Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act proceeds on an erroneous understanding of the expression “same subject matter”. According to learned counsel, the statutory bar is attracted only when the subsequent proceedings concern the same subject matter as the proceedings already initiated by the other tax authority.
17.2. It was submitted that the State proceedings and the subsequent Central proceedings are materially different. The State proceedings were initiated under Section 73 of the CGST Act, whereas the proceedings initiated by the Central authorities under Section 74 were founded upon intelligence and investigation which allegedly revealed fraudulent availment of ITC through transactions not accompanied by actual supply of goods.
17.3. It was further submitted that the State proceedings did not adjudicate upon the allegation that the transactions were bogus or that the invoices issued by the supplier were not accompanied by actual supply of goods. The subsequent investigation, according to the Respondents, brought to light material which formed the basis of the proceedings under Section 74.
17.4. It was next submitted that the two Central proceedings themselves concern M.R. Enterprises bearing different GSTINs and arise from separate investigative proceedings. Thus, according to the Respondents, the fact that the supplier is described by the same trade name cannot, by itself, establish identity of the supplier, transactions or subject matter.
17.5. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Armour Security (supra), particularly the conclusions recorded in paragraph 96 thereof, to submit that Section 6(2)(b) bars proceedings on the same subject matter, whereas proceedings concerning distinct infractions are not barred merely because the tax liability or obligation may be similar.
17.6. As regards the remaining objections, it was submitted that the same relate to the merits of the adjudication, including the genuineness of the transactions, receipt of goods, availability of ITC, existence of fraud or suppression and consideration of the documents furnished by the Petitioner. It was submitted that these issues can appropriately be examined by the statutory appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
18. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and carefully perused the material on record.
19. At the outset, the principal contention raised by the Petitioner is required to be examined in the context of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. The said provision seeks to prevent initiation of proceedings by one tax authority where proceedings on the same subject matter have already been initiated by the other tax authority.
20. The expression “same subject matter” is, therefore, of central significance. The Supreme Court in Armour Security (supra) has explained that the expression has to be understood with reference to the particular liability, deficiency or contravention which is sought to be adjudicated. Where the proceedings concern the same liability or the same contravention, the statutory bar would operate. Conversely, distinct infractions would not become the same subject matter merely because they relate to the same assessee, the same period or involve a similar tax liability.
21. The question which consequently arises is whether the proceedings initiated by the State GST authority and the subsequent proceedings initiated by the Central GST authorities concern the same liability or contravention.
22. The State proceedings in the present case were initiated under Section 73 of the CGST Act in respect of Financial Year 2017-18 and included a demand concerning ITC claimed by the Petitioner from M.R. Enterprises. The State proceedings culminated, after the order of this Court dated 05.03.2024, in the fresh order dated 29.07.2024.
23. The subsequent proceedings initiated by the Central GST authorities, on the other hand, were under Section 74 of the CGST Act and were founded upon investigation and intelligence concerning alleged fraudulent availment of ITC through invoices which, according to the Department, were not accompanied by actual supply of goods.
24. Thus, although there is a factual nexus between the two sets of proceedings inasmuch as both relate to ITC claimed by the Petitioner and refer to M.R. Enterprises, the nature of the allegation forming the basis of the subsequent proceedings is materially different. The Central proceedings proceed on the allegation that the ITC was availed on invoices which were not accompanied by actual supply of goods and that the availment was fraudulent in nature.
25. The mere fact that the State proceedings also concerned ITC claimed from an entity described as M.R. Enterprises does not, by itself, establish that the State authority had adjudicated the very same contravention which forms the foundation of the subsequent proceedings under Section 74.
26. The distinction is further borne out from the fact that the two Central proceedings themselves refer to M.R. Enterprises bearing different GSTINs, namely GSTIN No. 07BDIPS1163G1ZI and GSTIN No. 07EJVPS7789Q1ZC. The difference in GSTINs is a relevant circumstance while determining whether the proceedings relate to the same supplier and the same subject matter. At the same time, such difference cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive. The nature of the liability and the contravention alleged in the respective proceedings has to be examined.
27. The Petitioner has placed considerable emphasis on the fact that the proceedings relate to the same Financial Year and involve ITC of Rs.6,12,000/-. These circumstances, however, cannot by themselves establish identity of subject matter. For the statutory bar under Section 6(2)(b) to operate, it is necessary to establish identity of the liability or contravention which forms the subject matter of the two proceedings.
28. The contention that the Department cannot circumvent Section 6(2)(b) merely by changing the statutory provision invoked is undoubtedly correct as a general proposition. However, the applicability of Section 6(2)(b) cannot be determined merely by comparing the provisions under which the proceedings have been initiated. The underlying liability and contravention have to be examined.
29. In the present case, the subsequent proceedings under Section 74 are founded upon intelligence and investigation concerning alleged bogus transactions and fraudulent availment of ITC without actual supply of goods. The Petitioner has not placed sufficient material before this Court to establish that this very contravention had already been adjudicated upon by the State GST authority in the proceedings culminating in the order dated 29.07.2024.
30. The reliance placed by the Petitioner upon the judgment of this Court in Metalax Industries (supra) does not advance its case. The applicability of Section 6(2)(b) necessarily depends upon the identity of the subject matter of the two proceedings. The said provision cannot be invoked merely because the two proceedings have some common factual background or relate to the same assessee and period.
31. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Armour Security (supra) furnishes the controlling principle. The statutory bar operates where the proceedings concern the same subject matter. Where the proceedings arise out of distinct infractions or liabilities, the mere existence of some common factual or transactional background would not attract the bar.
32. This Court is, therefore, unable to accept the contention of the Petitioner that the proceedings initiated by the Central GST authorities under Section 74 are, on the material placed before this Court, ex facie barred by Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.
33. The Petitioner has also raised objections concerning the filing and consideration of its reply dated 31.08.2024, non-supply of relied-upon documents and the alleged non-application of mind by the adjudicating authorities.
34. These objections essentially require examination of the adjudication record. The Petitioner would be entitled to place its reply dated 31.08.2024 and the supporting documents before the appellate authority and contend that the same were not considered. Likewise, the question whether the relied-upon material was duly supplied and whether the adjudicating authorities correctly dealt with the defence raised by the Petitioner can be examined in the statutory appellate proceedings.
35. The same would apply to the Petitioner’s contention that the transactions were genuine, that the goods had actually been received at its premises and that there was no fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. These are matters which go to the merits of the adjudication and require examination of the factual and documentary record.
36. It is also relevant to notice that the Impugned Orders dated 10.01.2025 and 31.01.2025 are appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The existence of an efficacious statutory remedy does not render a writ petition per se non-maintainable. However, where the issues raised require examination of the adjudication record and disputed questions of fact, the High Court ordinarily does not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 in substitution of the statutory appellate mechanism.
37. In the present case, the Petitioner has not established any exceptional circumstance warranting interference by this Court at this stage. The principal jurisdictional objection based upon Section 6(2)(b) is not sustainable on the material placed before this Court. The remaining objections essentially concern the correctness of the adjudication and are capable of being examined by the appellate authority.
38. The contention of the Petitioner regarding the alleged duplication between the two Central proceedings also cannot, in the present proceedings, furnish a basis for interference with the impugned orders. The two proceedings refer to M.R. Enterprises bearing different GSTINs and the Respondents assert that they arise from separate investigative material. Whether any liability has, in fact, been duplicated or whether the two proceedings concern identical transactions is a matter which would require examination of the respective Show Cause Notices and adjudication records.
39. The Petitioner is, therefore, not precluded from raising the aforesaid contention before the appellate authority. The statutory appellate authority, while examining the appeals, would be competent to consider the complete record and determine whether there is any duplication or overlapping liability in accordance with law.
40. This Court has also considered the Petitioner’s submission that Section 74 could not have been invoked in the absence of material establishing fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. Such a contention directly concerns the basis and sustainability of the adjudication under Section 74. The same can appropriately be urged before the appellate authority, which is competent to examine the material relied upon by the Department as well as the defence raised by the Petitioner.
41. The extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary. The availability of a statutory appeal is a material consideration where the challenge involves examination of factual material and the correctness of findings recorded by the adjudicating authority. In the facts of the present case, the Petitioner has not made out a case warranting interference with the impugned orders in exercise of such jurisdiction.
42. It is, therefore, held that the Petitioner has failed to establish that the proceedings initiated by the Central GST authorities are proceedings on the “same subject matter” as the earlier proceedings initiated by the State GST authority so as to attract the bar contained in Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.
43. Before concluding, it is clarified that the observations made herein are confined to the question whether interference is warranted in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. This Court has not expressed any final opinion on the merits of the demand, the genuineness of the transactions, actual receipt of goods, applicability of Section 16 of the CGST Act, existence of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression, the consideration of the reply dated 31.08.2024, supply of relied-upon documents, or the correctness of the quantum of tax, interest or penalty.
CONCLUSION
44. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
45. The Petitioner shall, however, be at liberty to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act against the Orders dated 10.01.2025 and 31.01.2025, in accordance with law.
46. Needless to state, in the event the Petitioner avails the statutory remedy, all contentions available to it in law shall remain open, including the contentions relating to Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, the alleged overlapping proceedings, the filing and consideration of the reply dated 31.08.2024, non-supply of relied-upon documents, invocation of Section 74 and the merits of the demand, interest and penalty.
47. The appellate authority shall consider the aforesaid contentions independently and in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation contained in the present judgment except to the extent expressly decided herein.
48. The present Petition, along with the pending application, stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Note:
1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1700
