Parallel GST proceedings and arrest under CGST Act upheld where same-subject matter bar and arrest safeguards were satisfied.

The bar on parallel GST proceedings applies only where two authorities proceed on the same subject-matter, meaning an identical liability or offence; mere overlap of facts or a continuing inquiry is insufficient. Here, the State GST inquiry had been transferred to Central GST, so the challenge to the proceedings on parallel-proceedings grounds failed. Arrest under the CGST Act is valid only when supported by recorded reasons to believe, material showing a cognizable non-bailable offence, and necessity for custody to prevent tampering or secure investigation; the arrest memo and grounds were furnished and acknowledged, and the recorded material showed non-cooperation and attempted destruction of evidence. The arrest was therefore lawful and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the proceedings instituted by the Central GST authorities against the petitioner in Crime No. 34 of 2025 arising out of PCR No. 280 of 2025 deserved to be quashed on the ground of parallel proceedings; (ii) Whether the petitioner's arrest was illegal so as to invalidate the proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the proceedings instituted by the Central GST authorities against the petitioner in Crime No. 34 of 2025 arising out of PCR No. 280 of 2025 deserved to be quashed on the ground of parallel proceedings?

Analysis: The bar against parallel action under section 6(2)(b) is attracted only when the authorities proceed on the same subject-matter, meaning an identical liability or alleged offence sought to be assessed or recovered. Mere overlap of facts or ongoing inquiry does not by itself prohibit a different authority from continuing intelligence-based enforcement. Where one authority is already investigating and another authority later comes across overlapping material, the authorities must decide inter se which will proceed, and the investigation may be transferred accordingly. On the facts, the State GST inquiry had been transferred to the Central GST authorities, and the challenge to the latter proceedings on the footing of impermissible parallel proceedings could not succeed.

Conclusion: The proceedings were not liable to be quashed on the ground of parallel proceedings, and this issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner's arrest was illegal so as to invalidate the proceedings?

Analysis: Arrest under section 69(1) requires reasons to believe based on material showing commission of a cognizable and non-bailable offence under section 132(1)(c) read with section 132(5). The governing GST instructions and the Supreme Court's guidance require that the grounds of arrest be explained in writing and acknowledged, and that arrest not be routine but founded on credible material, necessity for investigation, and risk of tampering with evidence or evasion. The arrest memo and grounds of arrest were furnished and acknowledged, and the material recorded non-cooperation, obstruction, attempted destruction of evidence, and the need for custodial interrogation in a large fake ITC investigation. The arrest was therefore held to be in conformity with law.

Conclusion: The petitioner's arrest was not illegal, and this issue was decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the proceedings and arrest failed on both grounds, and no basis was made out for interference with the criminal case or the consequential action taken by the authorities.

Ratio Decidendi: The statutory bar on parallel GST proceedings applies only to the same subject-matter, and arrest under the CGST Act is valid when supported by recorded reasons to believe based on material showing a cognizable non-bailable offence and the necessity of arrest for investigation, prevention of tampering, or securing the inquiry.

---