Distinct subject matter defeats parallel proceedings bar in transitional credit dispute; writ interference with notice remains exceptional.

State GST authorities were not barred from issuing a show cause notice for alleged wrongful TRAN credit merely because Central GST authorities had earlier examined a different explanation and found no discrepancy. The court held that the later proceedings concerned a distinct subject matter, so the bar on parallel proceedings did not apply. It also found that the allegation of wrongful availment of transitional credit fell within the recovery provision invoked, and no clear patent lack of jurisdiction was shown. A writ petition against a show cause notice is maintainable only in exceptional cases such as clear jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice, which was not established here.

---

---

Issues: Whether the show cause notice issued by the State GST authorities for alleged wrongful availment of transitional credit was without jurisdiction in view of the earlier Central GST proceedings, and whether the writ petition challenging the notice was maintainable.

Analysis: The challenge rested on the contention that once the Central GST authorities had examined the petitioner's explanation and found no discrepancy, the State GST authorities were barred from proceeding further on the same subject matter. The Court found that the issue examined by the Central GST authorities was not the same as the issue of incorrect utilisation of TRAN credit, which arose from the State GST intelligence investigation. The statutory bar against parallel proceedings on the same subject matter therefore did not apply. The Court also found that the allegation of wrongful availment of transitional credit fell within the scope of the provision invoked for recovery of tax wrongly availed or utilised, and that the notice was not shown to be without jurisdiction. A writ petition against a show cause notice was held to be maintainable only in exceptional cases such as patent lack of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice, neither of which was made out.

Conclusion: The challenge to the show cause notice failed, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the subject matter of the later proceedings is distinct from the earlier proceedings, the bar against initiation of fresh proceedings does not apply, and a writ court will not interfere with a show cause notice unless a clear lack of jurisdiction or similar exceptional ground is demonstrated.

---