https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797248 Writ jurisdiction was not exercised to determine the objection that Central and State GST proceedings involved the same subject matter under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, because resolution required a factual comparison of the respective show-cause notices, periods, allegations, transactions, computations and supporting material. The petitioner had participated in adjudication, and the statutory appellate forum could examine the parallel-proceedings objection and challenges to the demand. The writ petition was disposed of with all contentions left open for the Appellate Authority. en-us Fri, 07 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Aug 2026 08:20:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797248 Writ jurisdiction was not exercised to determine the objection that Central and State GST proceedings involved the same subject matter under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, because resolution required a factual comparison of the respective show-cause notices, periods, allegations, transactions, computations and supporting material. The petitioner had participated in adjudication, and the statutory appellate forum could examine the parallel-proceedings objection and challenges to the demand. The writ petition was disposed of with all contentions left open for the Appellate Authority. Case-Laws GST Fri, 07 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797248