https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791044 Overlapping GST proceedings were examined in light of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, but the claimed identity of demand or relief in the second proceeding was not clearly established on the facts. The petitioner had not raised the alleged overlap before the proper officer during the second proceedings. The document also notes that Section 161 of the CGST Act provides a rectification mechanism for an error apparent on the record, and that the time to invoke that remedy had not expired. The matter was therefore left to the statutory remedies of rectification and appeal, with the merits kept open. en-us Mon, 27 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 May 2026 09:09:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791044 Overlapping GST proceedings were examined in light of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, but the claimed identity of demand or relief in the second proceeding was not clearly established on the facts. The petitioner had not raised the alleged overlap before the proper officer during the second proceedings. The document also notes that Section 161 of the CGST Act provides a rectification mechanism for an error apparent on the record, and that the time to invoke that remedy had not expired. The matter was therefore left to the statutory remedies of rectification and appeal, with the merits kept open. Case-Laws GST Mon, 27 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791044