State GST proceedings not barred where Central action began later; notice and hearing opportunity satisfied under GST law.

A State GST scrutiny order was upheld because a prior Central GST proceeding on the same subject matter had not been initiated before the State action, so the bar under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act did not apply. The Court noted that scrutiny notices and reminders were issued under the Bihar GST law, but the registered person gave no reply or corrective action. It also held that natural justice was not breached: a show cause notice under Section 74(1) was issued, a personal hearing was fixed, and the petitioner neither replied nor appeared, so the hearing requirement under Section 75(4) was satisfied. No jurisdictional or procedural infirmity was found, and the writ petitions were left to the statutory appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the State tax proceeding and the impugned order were barred because the Central agency had already initiated action on the same subject matter under the GST law; (ii) whether the impugned order suffered from violation of the statutory requirement of hearing under the GST provisions.

Issue (i): Whether the State tax proceeding and the impugned order were barred because the Central agency had already initiated action on the same subject matter under the GST law.

Analysis: The impugned order was passed in scrutiny of returns under Section 61(1) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 99(1) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The record showed issuance of scrutiny notices and reminders, but no reply or corrective action by the registered person. The Court found that the Central agency had not initiated proceedings on the same subject matter before the impugned order was passed; the Central proceeding commenced later by a demand-cum-show cause notice dated 24.03.2023. On that basis, the bar under Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was held inapplicable.

Conclusion: The challenge on the ground of prior Central proceedings failed, and the objection was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned order suffered from violation of the statutory requirement of hearing under the GST provisions.

Analysis: The Court noted that a demand-cum-show cause notice under Section 74(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 had been issued, a date for personal hearing was fixed, and the petitioner did not file a reply or appear. In those circumstances, the requirement of hearing under Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was treated as satisfied. The facts were distinguished from the earlier decision relied upon by the petitioner, where the absence of any reference to a show cause notice had led to a different result.

Conclusion: No violation of natural justice or of Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was found.

Final Conclusion: No jurisdictional or procedural infirmity was established in the impugned order, and the writ petitions were not entertained, with liberty to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 6(2)(b) does not bar a State GST proceeding unless a proceeding on the same subject matter has already been initiated by the other proper officer, and the requirement of hearing is satisfied where notice and opportunity are granted but not availed.

---