Facts of the Case: In this case, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice under Section 73 of the CGST/TGST Act for FY 2020-21. The petitioner challenged the order, contending that the Director General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) had already conducted and concluded an investigation into availment of ITC on bogus invoices, for which the petitioner had already paid tax, interest, and penalty.

The Petitioner relied on DGGI’s letter dated 13.02.2024, which confirmed closure of proceedings under Section 74(5)/(6). It was argued that the State GST authority acted without jurisdiction by issuing a parallel SCN for the same period and without proper application of mind.

Issue: Whether the proceedings initiated by the State GST authority under Section 73 for FY 2020-21 were invalid and overlapping, given that the DGGI had already concluded investigation into alleged fake ITC availment for related transactions.

Held that:

The Court observed that there was nothing on record to show that the invoices investigated by the DGGI pertained to FY 2020-21, which was the subject of the SCN issued by the State authority.

The Court held that DGGI investigation does not amount to commencement of adjudication, following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST (2025), mere investigation or inquiry by DGGI does not amount to initiation of adjudication proceedings under Section 6(2)(b). Only issuance of a SCN constitutes commencement of proceedings.

Further, Service of SCN via GST portal amounts to deemed service under Section 169 of the CGST Act.

The High Court declined interference, holding that the assessee should pursue remedy under Section 107 of the CGST/TGST Act. Writ petition dismissed. Impugned order sustained.

Case Name: Sensation Infracon (P.) Ltd. v. State of Telangana dated 18.08.2025

To read the complete judgment 2025 Taxo.online 1975