Parallel GST proceedings on same show-cause notice u/s6(2)(b) barred; State GST order quashed, writ allowed.

Once Central GST authorities had initiated proceedings by issuing a show-cause notice, the State GST authorities were barred from commencing dual/parallel proceedings on the same subject-matter under s.6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017. Applying the binding HC precedent holding that subsequent proceedings by the other GST authority are not maintainable and are without jurisdiction once one authority has already initiated action, the HC held the impugned State GST order-in-original and its summary to be jurisdictionally invalid; they were quashed and the writ petition was allowed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(a) Whether the impugned adjudication order and its summary were without jurisdiction for contravention of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017, on the ground that proceedings on the same subject matter had already been initiated by the other GST authority, thereby barring parallel/dual proceedings.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a): Bar on parallel/dual proceedings under Section 6(2)(b) and consequent lack of jurisdiction

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court proceeded on the basis that Section 6(2)(b) contains an express statutory bar against initiation of proceedings by one set of "proper officers" when proceedings on the same subject matter have already been initiated by the other GST authority, and treated the bar as going to jurisdiction/authority of law.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted the petitioner's contention that the controversy was squarely covered by an earlier decision of the same Court, and disposed of the matter "in terms" of that decision. Applying that approach, the Court treated the initiation/continuation of the impugned proceedings as impermissible once proceedings on the same subject matter had already been initiated by the other GST authority. On that basis, the Court concluded that the adjudication culminating in the impugned order and its summary suffered from a jurisdictional defect arising from violation of Section 6(2)(b).

Conclusions: The Court held that the petition was governed by the earlier decision and, following it, allowed the petition. The impugned order-in-original and the corresponding summary were quashed as being hit by the statutory bar under Section 6(2)(b) and therefore lacking jurisdiction/authority of law.

---