Parallel GST inspection and inquiry vs repeated s.70 summons for same documents; papers consolidated u/s67 officer, petition allowed.

Parallel GST proceedings arose where one departmental officer conducted inspection and inquiry under s.67(1) CGST/SGST Act, 2017, while other officers simultaneously issued summons under s.70 to the same taxpayer seeking documents already in the inspecting officer's possession. The HC held that, since the inspection-based inquiry was already underway and covered multiple related business concerns, duplicative summons and document demands by separate officers warranted streamlining to avoid overlapping investigations. Accordingly, the officers who issued summons were directed to transfer all papers/documents to the inspecting officer, the taxpayer was directed to cooperate and furnish documents to that officer, and further action was left to be taken in accordance with law; the petition was allowed.

---

---

Issues involved:
Petition under Article 226 for transfer of proceedings and documents, quashing of summons, interpretation of Section 6(2)(b) of CGST Act.

Summary:

Issue 1: Transfer of Proceedings and Documents
The petitioner sought direction to transfer proceedings and documents from respondent no. 1 and 2 to Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Vadodara Regional Unit. The petitioner also requested respondent no. 4 to complete the proceedings promptly and to quash the summons issued by respondent no. 1.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 6(2)(b) of CGST Act
The petitioner argued that as per Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, no proceedings should be initiated by another proper officer on the same subject matter once proceedings have been initiated by a proper officer under the Act. The petitioner contended that since respondent no. 4 had already initiated an investigation, respondents no. 1 and 2 should transfer the inquiry to respondent no. 4.

Judgment:
The Court heard arguments from both sides and noted that respondent no. 4 had initiated an inquiry and inspection regarding multiple firms, including the petitioner's firm. Considering this, the Court directed respondents no. 1 and 2 to transfer all documents to respondent no. 4 for investigation regarding both M/s. J.M. Enterprise and M/s. Galaxy Enterprise. The petitioner was instructed to cooperate with respondent no. 4 by providing necessary documents for the inquiry. The Court allowed the petition to the extent of transferring the proceedings and documents to respondent no. 4 for further action in accordance with the law.

---