The Allahabad High Court declined a writ against a Section 74 order alleging overlapping State and Central action on seven transactions, directing the firm to contest the whole order in appeal.
A taxpayer cannot split the challenge to a single adjudication order, pressing a jurisdictional point on some transactions before the High Court while contesting the rest in appeal, the Allahabad High Court has held [Star Metal Industries v. Additional Commissioner Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise & Anr., 2026-juristway.com-3453-HC(Allahabad)-GST].
The Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi heard a challenge to an order of 22 Jun 2026 under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, for 2018-19 to 2023-24.
The firm argued that the order ran contrary to an earlier ruling of the Court in its own case (2026:AHC:89713-DB), and pressed Section 6(2)(b), which bars a proper officer from initiating proceedings on a subject matter already taken up by an officer of the other administration.
The Revenue pointed out that only 7 of the 27 transactions in the order were allegedly common to the State and Central proceedings. On the remaining 20 there was no allegation of a breach of Section 6(2)(b), and the firm had a statutory appeal. The firm’s counsel accepted that the order covered the other 20 transactions and said the firm wished to contest those as well.
The Court found no jurisdictional error as regards the 20 transactions, so a writ could not be entertained on them. It held that the surviving challenge on the 7 invoices could also be raised in appeal. Even if those involved a jurisdictional issue, the petitioner could not bifurcate a dispute arising from the same order, taking 7 transactions to the High Court and the rest to the appellate forum.
Interference was declined. The petition was disposed of with a direction that if the firm files an appeal within three weeks, it will be heard on merits without any objection as to limitation.
2026-juristway.com-3453-HC(Allahabad)-GST
