Concurrent GST adjudication barred where the same input tax credit reversal issue was already pending in another proceeding.

Concurrent adjudication of the same GST demand was held impermissible where the issue of input tax credit reversal on non-business transactions and exempt supplies was already pending before the Directorate General of GST Intelligence. Because the impugned order covered an overlapping period and pursued the same issue in parallel proceedings, the overlapping demand could not be sustained before the local authority. The demand on that issue was set aside, leaving the competent authority to decide it in the pending DG GSTI proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand relating to input tax credit reversal on non-business transactions and exempt supplies could be adjudicated by the local authority when the same issue was already the subject of proceedings initiated by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence.

Analysis: The impugned order itself recorded that the issue had already been taken up by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence and that parallel proceedings could not be commenced. The period covered by the impugned order overlapped with the period covered by the subsequent show cause notice, and the demand on the same issue was therefore being pursued in separate proceedings. The demand was accordingly not amenable to simultaneous adjudication by both authorities.

Conclusion: The demand to the extent it related to input tax credit reversal on non-business transactions and exempt supplies was set aside, leaving the competent authority to adjudicate that issue in the proceedings initiated by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded to the limited extent that the impugned demand on the overlapping issue was quashed, and the matter was left for decision in the other pending GST proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the same tax issue and overlapping period are already subject to proceedings before another competent GST authority, concurrent adjudication on the same demand is impermissible and the overlapping demand must yield to that other proceeding.

---