The petitioner by filing this petition has challenged the show cause notice dated 21.07.2020 (Annexure P-22) issued by the respondent No.2 and recovery notices dated 18.09.2019 (Annexure P-14 to P-18) passed by the respondent No.6.

Contention of Shri Avinash Zargar, learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the present case, the respondent No.6 – State Tax Officer, SGST, Circle Rewa, Rewa (M.P.) has already initiated the proceedings for recovery of interest on delayed payment under Section 50 of the Madhya Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short “MPGST Act”) vide two orders dated 25.05.2019 (Annexure P-10 & Annexure P-11). The petitioner has filed two separate appeals against the said orders before the Joint Commissioner, State Tax (Appeals) Rewa, Satna (M.P.) but during pendency of the said two appeals, the respondent No.2 – Joint Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Bhopal has issued the impugned show cause notice dated 21.07.2020 (Annexure P-22) under Section 73(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short “CGST Act”) covering the same period for the same amount of interest on the delayed payment.

Citing the provisions of Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the CGST Act, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it has been provided therein that where one proper officer either under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or under the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, has initiated any proceedings on a subject matter, no proceedings shall be initiated by another proper officer under this Act on the same subject matter. The precise argument of the learned counsel therefore is that while the petitioner has already filed the appeals against the main orders of assessment before the appellate authority, which are still pending, the respondent No.2 could not have initiated the parallel proceedings for recovery of the interest on delayed payment of tax, as the proper officer under the State Act i.e. MPGST Act has already assumed the jurisdiction.

On the other hand, Shri Gajendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submitted that writ petition against the show cause notice may not be entertained and the petitioner may be required to submit reply to the show cause notice and raise these objections before the proper officer, who will obviously consider and decide in accordance with law.

At this stage, Shri Avinash Zargar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already filed reply to the show cause notice but no decision has been taken by the respondent No.2 on that reply.

Be that as it may, if the petitioner has not already filed reply to the show cause notice, it would be open for the petitioner to file reply to the impugned show cause notice raising the aforesaid objection. We direct that the respondent No.2, before proceeding further on the impugned show cause notice, shall first deal with and decide the aforesaid objection of the petitioner in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observation, the present petition stands disposed of.