Parallel GST proceedings barred on same subject matter, with coordination required between Central and State tax administrations.

Parallel adjudicatory proceedings on the same GST subject matter are barred under the governing law, while lawful investigative steps and coordination between Central and State tax administrations remain permissible. The petition challenged a Central GST show cause notice, along with connected summons and intimations, on the basis that State proceedings had already been initiated on the same matter. Rather than undertake an independent merits review of the notice, the Court applied the Supreme Court's binding position and directed compliance with that framework: the petitioner was to respond to the Central proceedings, cooperate with the inquiry, inform the State authority, and await inter-departmental coordination.

---

---

Issues: Whether the challenge to the Central GST show cause notice on the ground of parallel proceedings barred by Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 required a merits adjudication, and what directions were necessary to ensure compliance with the prohibition against duplication of proceedings.

Analysis: The petition was founded on the allegation that the State authority had commenced proceedings earlier and that the later Central proceedings, including the show cause notice and connected summons and intimations, concerned the same subject matter. The controlling legal position was taken from the binding law already declared by the Supreme Court, which recognises that parallel adjudicatory proceedings on the same subject matter are barred, while permitting lawful investigative steps and requiring coordination between the Central and State tax administrations. On the facts placed before the Court, it was considered sufficient to issue directions aligned with that legal position, rather than undertake an independent merits determination on the validity of the notice or the allegations.

Conclusion: No separate adjudication on the merits of the notice was undertaken, and the petitioner was directed to respond to the Central proceedings, cooperate with the inquiry, inform the State authority, and await inter-departmental coordination in accordance with the governing law.

---