Overlap under GST proceedings must be precisely identified before sustaining a state assessment based on prior central action.

Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act bars later proceedings only where the same identifiable subject matter, liability or substantially overlapping transactions have already been taken up by the other tax administration. The court noted that a blanket reliance on prior central proceedings is insufficient unless the exact overlap is examined, and where assessment and rectification orders under the State GST law do not clearly record whether the alleged suppression is distinct from matters already covered, those orders cannot be sustained; they were quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration with directions to verify the overlap and exclude any covered portion.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether proceedings under the State GST law were barred by Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act on the ground that the same subject matter had already been dealt with by the central authorities. (ii) Whether the assessment and rectification orders could be sustained without a specific finding on overlap between the transactions covered by the central order and those covered by the impugned state proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether proceedings under the State GST law were barred by Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act on the ground that the same subject matter had already been dealt with by the central authorities.

Analysis: Section 6(2)(b) bars initiation of proceedings on the same subject matter once proceedings have already been initiated by the other tax administration. The controlling principle is that the bar applies when the later proceedings concern the same liability, contravention, or substantially overlapping subject matter, and not merely the same year or general return. On the facts, the central order had proceeded on specified transactions and return differences, while the state order did not clearly identify whether the very same infractions were being re-agitated. A blanket invocation of prior central proceedings was therefore insufficient without examining the exact overlap.

Conclusion: The plea of complete statutory bar was not accepted in absolute terms, but the court held that the overlap had to be specifically examined before sustaining the state action.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment and rectification orders could be sustained without a specific finding on overlap between the transactions covered by the central order and those covered by the impugned state proceedings.

Analysis: The impugned orders proceeded on the footing of suppression under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, but they did not clearly record whether the alleged liability was wholly distinct from, or already covered by, the earlier central proceedings. In the absence of a clear finding on the exact transactions and subject matter, the assessment could not be sustained. The proper course was to quash the orders and remit the matter for reconsideration with directions to examine the documents and exclude any portion already covered by the central proceedings.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were quashed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.

Final Conclusion: State proceedings cannot be sustained merely on a general allegation of suppression when prior central proceedings exist; the authority must determine with precision whether the identical subject matter is already covered and then decide afresh.

Ratio Decidendi: The bar under Section 6(2)(b) operates only where the later proceedings concern the same identifiable subject matter or overlapping liability already taken up by the other tax administration, and a state assessment cannot be sustained without a clear finding on such overlap.

---