GST summons and parallel proceedings bar: inquiry summons alone does not trigger Section 6(2)(b) without verified overlapping notices.

A GST summons issued for inquiry or collection of evidence does not itself amount to initiation of proceedings for the bar under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. The Court noted that the petitioner's alleged prior proceedings under Section 74 were not supported by the relevant notice or summons on record, so the claimed overlap could not be verified. The summons was therefore not quashed at this stage, and the petitioner was directed to appear with the necessary documents so the authority could verify whether parallel proceedings existed and proceed in accordance with the applicable guidelines.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the GST summons on the ground of bar under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act deserved quashing, and whether the authority could proceed pending verification of alleged overlapping proceedings.

Analysis: The petitioner relied on the alleged pendency of proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act before another GST authority, but no summon or notice issued under that provision was placed on record, so the Court could not compare the two sets of proceedings. The Court applied the principles laid down on Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, including that initiation of proceedings refers to formal adjudicatory action by show cause notice and that summons issued for inquiry or collection of evidence do not, by themselves, amount to proceedings. It was therefore directed that the petitioner appear before the issuing authority with the relevant documents, whereupon the authority would verify the claimed overlap and act in accordance with the governing guidelines.

Conclusion: The summons were not quashed at this stage, and the petitioner was required to cooperate with the inquiry and place the alleged earlier notice before the authority for verification.

Final Conclusion: The challenge was not finally accepted on merits, but the petitioner obtained a limited procedural safeguard requiring verification of the alleged overlap before further action.

Ratio Decidendi: A summons issued for inquiry or collection of evidence does not constitute initiation of proceedings for the purposes of the statutory bar against parallel proceedings, and alleged overlap must be verified on the basis of the actual notices or proceedings.

---