M/s Ramada Engineering Industry v. Additional Commissioner (Adjudication), CGST & Anr. (W.P.(C) 1036/2026) was decided by the Delhi High Court by a Division Bench comprising Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul. The petitioner challenged GST proceedings under Section 74 for FY 2018–19, arguing that they were barred due to an earlier proceeding under Section 73 for FY 2019–20. The Court held that the statutory bar under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act applies only where proceedings relate to identical subject matter, tax liability, and assessment period. It clarified that distinct financial years and different categories of tax infractions—such as non-payment versus fraudulent ITC—constitute separate causes of action. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition and directed the petitioner to pursue statutory appellate remedies.

Legal Issue
Whether statutory bars on parallel adjudicatory proceedings under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act apply to separate tax notices pertaining to distinct financial years and different species of tax infractions.

Brief Facts
The petitioner challenged an order confirming a GST demand under Section 74 (fraud/suppression-based) for FY 2018-19, alleging that the proceeding was legally untenable as it followed an earlier Section 73 proceeding (non-fraud-based) for FY 2019-20. The petitioner argued that both notices emanated from a common subject matter and thus triggered the prohibition against duplicative proceedings under the CGST Act.

Court's Reasoning
The Court clarified that the statutory prohibition against parallel proceedings under Section 6(2)(b) is not a broad bar but is strictly confined to proceedings involving identical subject matter, specific tax liability, and assessment periods. It ruled that distinct financial years and qualitatively different infractions—short-payment of tax versus fraudulent input tax credit (ITC) availment—constitute separate causes of action under the GST framework. Consequently, the Court held that the department was well within its statutory authority to initiate distinct proceedings for distinct periods and natures of non-compliance.

Judgment
The writ petition was dismissed, with the Court confirming that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any overlap that would trigger the statutory bar, and directing the petitioner to exhaust the available appellate remedies under the CGST Act.

Subsequent Development
The decision serves as a significant guidance for corporate assessees on the boundaries of GST litigation, confirming that different financial years and differing legal standards for tax infractions necessitate separate and non-parallel assessment proceedings.

Access the full judgement Click here:

Case Title
M/s Ramada Engineering Industry v. Additional Commissioner (Adjudication), CGST & Anr.

Neutral Citation
W.P.(C) 1036/2026

Court
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Bench
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Digpaul