1. Heard Ms Pooja Talwar and Mr P.H. Vashishtha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Parv Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Present petition has been filed for the following relief:

“(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned show cause notice dated 03.06.2021 issued by the respondent nos.2 Assistant Commissioner, Central GST, Meerut, for the Financial Year August 2018 and September 2018 under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Annexure -7 to the writ petition) and all further proceedings arising there from which are not in conformity in law.”

3. Placing heavy reliance on a division bench decision of the Telangana High Court in M/s Deem Distributors Private Ltd. vs. Union of India & 3 Ors., Writ Petition No. 7063 of 2021, dated 03.08.2021, it has been submitted, in face of the criminal prosecution pending against the petitioner as is apparent from the annexure to the writ petition, the respondent authorities cannot initiate or continue parallel proceedings under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act).

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it appears, arising from investigation carried out on the basis of certain information received from the petitioner’s bank, two proceedings have arisen – one under Section 74 of the Central Act and another seeking prosecution, under Section 132(1)(c) of the Central Act. In the first place, the proceedings under Section 74 of the Central Act have been initiated against the petitioner vide show cause notice dated 04.06.2021 requiring it to show cause, as below:

“24. Now, therefore, M/s Aamir & Sons situated at near Ram Lal Aata Chakki, Bagia Nawabpura, P.S. Nagfani, Moradabad (U.P.) having GSTN 09AHLPA8397A1ZB (Legal name – Mohd Arif) are hereby required to Show Cause to the Additional/Joint Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax, Opp. CCS University, Mangal Pandey Nagar, Meerut as to why-

(i) the ITC of IGST amounting to ₹ 7,82,84,710/- (Rs Seven Crores Eighty Two Lakh Eighty Five Thousand Seven Hundred & Ten only) should not demanded from them under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act read with Section 20 of IGST Act. As an amount of ₹ 7,68,82,000/- (Rs. Seven Crores Sixty-Eight Lacs Eight-Two Thousand Only) has already been recovered frmo M/s Aamir & Sons, the same should not be appropriated against the said liability;

(ii) Interest should not be demanded on the amount of IGST wrongly availed under section 50(3) of the CGST Act 2017 read with section 20 of IGST Act, 2017;

(iii) penalty equivalent to the tax specified in (i) above should not be imposed upon them under Section 122 of CGST Act read with section 20 of IGST Act, 2017.”

5. Second, criminal prosecution has been initiated before the court of competent jurisdiction namely the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut.

6. There is no difficulty in recognizing the principle that the single transaction may give rise to both criminal and civil consequences. In the instant case, the same appears to have been caused. There is no principle in law as may warrant any interference in the present petition to either grant injunction against the pending proceedings under Section 74 of the Central Act or to quash the same, merely because the criminal proceedings is pending against the petitioner arising from the same transaction under (Section 132(1)(c) of the Central Act).

7. Both proceedings may continue simultaneously such that the rule of evidence applicable to each may be applied independently. While criminal prosecution may conclude applying the rule of strict proof, the civil proceedings may conclude on the rule of balance of probabilities. Also, at the conclusion of a criminal prosecution, punishment may be awarded, whereas at the conclusion of a civil proceeding, only recoveries may be made.

8. Examined in that light, we find, the decision of the Telangana High Court in M/s Deem Distributors Private Ltd. (supra), is on a different footing. There, both proceedings were pending under the GST Act itself. While the Directors of that petitioner-company had been called to record their statements, at the same time, an adjudication notice came to be issued to the petitioner. That exercise of power may have been premature. However, it cannot be denied that there was no criminal prosecution pending in that case.

9. For the above reason, no reliance can be placed on the aforesaid decision of the Telangana High Court.

10. Present petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to raise such objections and defence, in both criminal and civil proceedings, as it may be advised. It is further made clear, we have not considered the merits of the case and no part of this order may prejudice the rights of the petitioner in the proceedings, either before the authority under the Central Act or before the learned court below.