https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=800042 Section 6(2)(b) bars subsequent Central GST proceedings only where earlier State GST proceedings concern the identical subject matter. Turnover reconciliation proceedings and proceedings based on search material alleging non-existent suppliers, wrongful input tax credit, and invoices without corresponding supplies involved distinct allegations and evidence; the parallel-proceedings bar therefore did not apply. Multiple notices sent by speed post and registered email, followed by non-appearance and no substantive reply, constituted adequate hearing opportunity, so the ex parte order was not vitiated. Section 16(2)(c) remains constitutionally valid following High Court and Supreme Court affirmation. The merits of the input tax credit demand were not adjudicated. en-us Thu, 24 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Sep 2026 08:41:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=800042 Section 6(2)(b) bars subsequent Central GST proceedings only where earlier State GST proceedings concern the identical subject matter. Turnover reconciliation proceedings and proceedings based on search material alleging non-existent suppliers, wrongful input tax credit, and invoices without corresponding supplies involved distinct allegations and evidence; the parallel-proceedings bar therefore did not apply. Multiple notices sent by speed post and registered email, followed by non-appearance and no substantive reply, constituted adequate hearing opportunity, so the ex parte order was not vitiated. Section 16(2)(c) remains constitutionally valid following High Court and Supreme Court affirmation. The merits of the input tax credit demand were not adjudicated. Case-Laws GST Thu, 24 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=800042