https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751238 The dominant issue was whether Central GST authorities could initiate and continue proceedings, including summons and a show cause-cum-demand notice, when State GST authorities had already initiated proceedings, in view of the statutory bar under s. 6(2)(b) CGST/OGST Act against parallel proceedings on the same "subject matter" (equated with cause of action and relief). The HC held that the bar operates only where the subject matter is identical; if the cause of action differs, maintainability is not barred. However, given the dispute on whether both investigations concerned the same subject matter and since a show cause-cum-demand notice had already been issued, the HC declined writ interference and disposed of the petitions, granting liberty to reply to the notice and raise the s. 6(2)(b) objection before the appropriate forum. en-us Fri, 05 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Jan 2026 14:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751238 The dominant issue was whether Central GST authorities could initiate and continue proceedings, including summons and a show cause-cum-demand notice, when State GST authorities had already initiated proceedings, in view of the statutory bar under s. 6(2)(b) CGST/OGST Act against parallel proceedings on the same "subject matter" (equated with cause of action and relief). The HC held that the bar operates only where the subject matter is identical; if the cause of action differs, maintainability is not barred. However, given the dispute on whether both investigations concerned the same subject matter and since a show cause-cum-demand notice had already been issued, the HC declined writ interference and disposed of the petitions, granting liberty to reply to the notice and raise the s. 6(2)(b) objection before the appropriate forum. Case-Laws GST Fri, 05 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751238