Shree Maruti Stone Industries Vs Assistant Commissioner (Gujarat High Court)
Summary : The Gujarat High Court quashed the order dated 25.01.2025 challenged by Shree Maruti Stone Industries because the consolidated demand included financial years already covered by State proceedings. The petitioner challenged the notice dated 02.08.2025 and the order dated 25.01.2025 on the ground that they violated section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. At the outset, advocates for both sides sought remand in view of paragraph 14 of the respondents’ affidavit dated 26.11.2025.
The petitioner relied on M/s. Armour Security (India) Limited vs. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate and Anr., (2025) 33 Centax 222 (S.C.), particularly paragraphs 96 and 97. The respondents’ counsel accepted that the Supreme Court had settled the issue. The High Court noted that section 6(2)(b) bars proceedings that overlap in assessing or recovering the same tax liability, deficiency or obligation arising from a particular contravention. Proceedings concerning distinct infractions are not barred merely because the liability or deficiency is similar. The respondents’ affidavit stated that State proceedings covered FYs 2017-18 and 2018-19, whereas the Central notice covered July 2017 to November 2022, including unexamined periods. It also advanced an argument about adjustment of excess recovery or duplication under section 79(1).
