TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether parallel adjudicatory proceedings by Central and State GST authorities on the same subject matter are barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and what directions should follow for coordination and continuation of proceedings.
Analysis: The Court applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court on the scope of "initiation of proceedings" and "same subject matter" under Section 6(2)(b). It held that once one authority has first initiated adjudicatory proceedings on an identical liability or contravention, the other authority cannot continue parallel adjudication on the same subject matter. At the same time, investigative steps such as summons and inquiry may continue until it is ascertained whether the proceedings overlap. The Court therefore directed the petitioner to file responses before the concerned Central and State authorities, required inter-authority communication to verify overlap, and mandated coordination so that only the competent authority proceeds further.
Conclusion: Parallel adjudicatory proceedings on the same subject matter are barred, and the authorities must coordinate to that only one competent authority continues the matter after considering the petitioner's response.
TaxTMI 
