on same subject
matter by Central
Tvl. Al-Madhina Steel
Officer (ECM)  148
taxmann.com 86 (Madras)
It was alleged that Central Authority has issued summon on the same subject matter
on which summon has already been issued by the State Authority, which is impermissible
under law as per the provisions of section 6(2)(b) of the GST Act 2017.
The High Court directed the Central Authority to consider the reply submitted by the
petitioner and in case it is decided that the subject matter is one and the same, they will
have to necessarily drop the proposed initiation of proceedings against the petitioner as
per the provisions of section 6(2)(b) of the GST Act 2017
Authority and by
Kuppan Gounder P.G.
Natarajan v. Directorate
General of GST Intelligence
 143 taxmann.com 289
State authority had conducted the search and seizure operations and summons had
been issued, order of provisional attachment had been passed and in such situation it was
alleged by the petitioner that Directorate General of GST Intelligence cannot initiate
any action and issue summons under section 70 of the CGST Act and the summons
is barred as per the provisions of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.
It was held that the scope of section 6(2)(b) and section 70 is different and distinct, as the
former deals with any "proceedings on a subject matter/same subject matter" whereas,
section 70 deals with power to summon in an inquiry and therefore, the words
"proceedings" and "inquiry" cannot be mixed up to read as if there is a bar for the
respondent to invoke the power under section 70 of the CGST Act
-G.K. Trading Co. v.
Union of India 
211/51 GSTL 288
-RCI Industries and
Technologies Ltd. v.
DGST Delhi 
342/84 GST 636/46
GSTL 123 (Delhi).
-Dadhichi Iron and
Steel (P.) Ltd. v.
GST 167/35 GSTL 4
by State Authority and by
Authority and by
DGGST Authority and by
It was contended by the petitioner that once Deputy Commissioner (SIB), Ghaziabad,
has conducted a survey of the business premises of the petitioner on 30-5-2018 and is investigating in the matter pursuant to the aforesaid survey, no inquiry can be initiated
or summon can be issued by the DGGSTI Meerut Zonal Unit, Meerut under section
70 of the C.G.S.T. Act against the petitioner even if basis of material of
inquiry/investigation by them may be different. In other words, the State Authority may
investigate/inquire in all the matters pertaining to the business of the petitioner and,
therefore, the summons in the matter of inquiry issued by the Central Authority is barred
by the provisions of section 6(2)(b) of the C.G.S.T. Act.
It was held by the High Court that the word "proceedings" used in Section 6(2)(b) is qualified
by the words "subject-matter" which indicate an adjudication process/proceedings on the
same cause of action and for the same dispute, which may be proceedings relating to
assessment, audit, demands and recovery and offences and penalties etc. It was further
pointed out that these proceedings are subsequent to inquiry under section 70 of the CGST
Act and the words "in any inquiry" are referable to the provisions under Chapter XIV viz.,
sections 67, 68, 69, 71 and 72. Thus, it was held that the proper officer may invoke power
under section 70 in any inquiry and the prohibition under section 6(2)(b) shall come into
play when any proceeding on the same subject-matter had already been initiated by a
proper officer under the State Act. Therefore, the contention raised by the appellant stating
that in issuance of summons for conducting an inquiry and to obtain a statement from the
appellant cannot be construed to be bar under section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. Thus, the
key words occurring in both the provisions viz., "in any inquiry" and "proceedings on the
same-subject matter" indicate the crucial difference between these two provisions.
Raj Metal Industries v. Union
of India  127
taxmann.com 546 (Calcutta)
The High Court stayed the proceedings initiated by summons issued on October 19,
2020 by the State GST which prima facie, in the opinion of the High Court were in violation
of Section 6(2)(b) of the WBGST Act since the proceedings were pending before the
Central GST Authorities.
Mills v. Union of
India  3 SCC
-Ballabh Das v. Dr.
Madanlal  1
Notice issued by
availment of ITC
of proceedings by DGGSTI on
Dadhichi Iron and Steel (P.)
Ltd. v. Chhattisgarh GST
 116 taxmann.com 334
It was alleged that once a show cause notice proceeding have been initiated and are
pending before the concerned authorities under the SGST, then DGGSTI could not
have issued or initiated another investigation or proceeding in-respect of the same
subject matter, which otherwise is not permissible under the provisions of Section
The High Court held that the initial issuance of the show cause notice and the proceedings
drawn were in respect of the intrastate transactions made by the petitioner, whereas subsequent to a secret information being received and further investigation being made,
particularly in the course of a raid, which was conducted at the premises of the petitionerestablishment and other related premises, it was revealed that the magnitude of the offence
committed by the petitioner-establishment was far more grave and serious. It was in the
course of raid found that the petitioner had been making false and bogus transactions and
has illegally availed ineligible ITC credits. The magnitude of which detected by now is
approximately Rs. 60 crores and with further investigation the amount is likely to increase
manifold. The High Court thus did not find any substance in the arguments of the petitioner,
when petitioner contended that the investigation and the proceedings now initiated is one,
which hit by section 6(2)(1)(b) of the CGST Act of 2017.
SCN issued by
Industries and Technologies
Ltd. v. Commissioner
DGST, Delhi  123
taxmann.com 342 (Delhi)
The Primary ground of contention by the Petitioner was of parallel investigation and the
contention is borne out of the notice dated 30th September, 2020, whereby the documents
for the period of 2017-18 to 2020-21 were requisitioned by State GST Authority. It was
contended by the Petitioner that since DGGI has issued a show-cause notice under
section 74 of the CGST Act, for the years 2017-18 and 2018-19, then by virtue of
Section 6 of CGST Act, State GST authorities cannot carry out the investigation for
the said period.
The High Court observed that the request in the notice dated 30th September, 2020
cannot ipso facto lead to the conclusion that there is a parallel investigation for the same
period by both the Central and State Authorities. The High Court also observed that in the
event the notice issued by the State authorities pertains to a period which is covered by
the investigation carried out by the Central GST authorities, the Petitioner can take
recourse to the appropriate remedies in that regard.
The High Court held that if an officer of the Central GST initiates intelligence- based
enforcement action against a taxpayer administratively assigned to State GST, the officers
of the former would not transfer the said case to their counterparts in the latter department
and they would themselves take the case to its logical conclusion. The revenue would be
bound by Letter Dated 5-10-2018 and letter issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes
and Customs being No. CBEC-20/10/07/2019-GST dated 22th June, 2020 and high court
reiterated that in case the action of the State and Central Authorities is overlapping, the
Petitioner would be at liberty to take action to impugn the same in accordance with law
State and Central
Sonam Berlia v. State of
Petitioner's business premises was impounded by the DGGSTI and a search was
undertaken thereof. During the course of search records, documents were seized and
summons were issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act on various dates by
DGGSTI. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued by the Additional CT and GST Officer, Sambalpur- I Circle (SGST) wherein Petitioner was asked to pay OGST,
CGST, interest, penalty to the tune of Rs.3,78,68,262.08 on ITC wrongly availed. The
petitioner submitted that since the Senior Intelligence Officer of the DGGSTI, Bhubaneswar
has seized all the documents and issued summons pursuant to which the Petitioner was
appearing there from time to time, the proceedings initiated by State GST should be kept
in abeyance till such time of proceedings before the DGGSTI concluded. Despite the above
request, State GST Officer proceeded to pass an order under Section 74 of the OGST Act
requiring the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,74,74,953.98 towards OGST, CGST, interest,
penalty. The State Authorities in their reply did not dispute the circular dated 5th October,
2018 but claim not to have known that the Central tax authority was seized of the matter.
The High Court observed that period of enquiry as far as Central tax authority is concerned
is from July, 2017 to September, 2018 whereas State Authority has issued a show cause
notice specific for April, 2018 and, therefore, there is also an overlapping of the periods.
Therefore, the High Court quashed the show cause notice and the impugned order issued
by the State Authority and directed that till the conclusion of the proceedings initiated
against the Petitioner by the DGGSTI, no coercive action be taken against the Petitioner
by State GST Authority.
Om Sakthi Construction v.
 147 taxmann.com 434
In the present matter, Inspection and seizure of documents was on 16-3-2020, the first
impugned notice under Section 65 is dated 30-8-2022, 'show cause notice' based on
inspection was issued on dated 18-10-2022, reply to the SCN is dated 22-11-2022, second
and third impugned notices are dated 23-11-2022 and 27-12-2022.
The High Court held that here is nothing to demonstrate that when the audit under section
65 has been kick started by way of a notice, thereafter show cause notice under section
74 is impermissible.
-R.P. Buildcon (P.)
CGST & C.Ex. 
-Sonam Berlia v.
State of Odisha
Suresh Kumar P.P. v.
Deputy Director, Directorate
General of GST
Intelligence (DGGI) 
120 taxmann.com 173
GST Authorities initiated the search and seizure proceedings against Managing Director
and Director of Media Company. Pursuant to such proceedings summons u/s 70 were
issued. Thereafter, notice for audit under section 65 of CGST Act was also issued.
Various documents were seized vide Order of Seizure dated 09.06.2020. The petitioner
prayed for relief from such enquiry proceedings.
Petition was dismissed by holding that auditing of books as well as order of seizure of
documents would help the department in co-relating the entries in the documents and at
the time of auditing of the account. The procedure for further actions is contained in Chapter
15 of CGST Act. Therefore, it would be too premature to comment upon the act of the respondents and cannot be said to be against the provisions of the statute or misuse,
warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
SLP Filed before Supreme Court in the matter has been dismissed. Suresh Kumar P. P.
v. Deputy Director, Directorate General Of GST Intelligence (DGGI)  125
taxmann.com 61 (SC)
initiated by Audit,
for same years
R. P. Buildcon (P.) Ltd. v.
Superintendent, CGST &
Central Excise  144
taxmann.com 108 (Calcutta)
In the present matter, three wings of the same department are proceeding against the
appellants for the very same period, i.e. financial years 2017- 2018, 2018-2019 and
2019-2020. The first of the department which had taken action was the Audit
Commissionerate, which had issued notice under section 65 of the CGST Act, 2017 dated
9th November, 2021. It is submitted that the appellants had furnished the details as called
for in the said notice and also responded to the intimation dated 5th January, 2022/6th
January, 2022for conducting GST audit. In the meantime, the other two wings of the
department, viz. Anti Evasion wing as well as the Range Office have also proceeded
against the appellants by issuing notices for the very same period for which audit
proceedings under section 65 of the Act has already commenced. Revenue in its reply
stated that the three wings of the department are proceeding against the appellants
because the Range office was not aware about the proceedings initiated by the Audit
Commissionerate and the Anti Evasion also was not aware of the same.
The High Court observed that it is not clear as to why in the present days of electronic
communications available in the department, such parallel proceedings can be conducted
by three wings of the same department for the very same period. Thus, it held that since
the audit proceedings under section 65 of the Act has already commenced, it is but
appropriate that the proceedings should be taken to the logical end. The proceedings
initiated by the Anti Evasion and Range Office for the very same period shall not be
proceeded with any further.
link initiated by
Indo International Tobacco
Ltd. v. Vivek Prasad,
Additional Director General
(DGGI)  134
taxmann.com 157 (Delhi)
The investigations were initiated by various jurisdictional authorities against different
entities. As contended by the respondents, as common thread were allegedly found in
these investigations, the same have been transferred to DGGI, AZU to be brought
under one umbrella. We also find that in the CGST Act there is no prohibition to such
transfer. Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act has limited application and therefore, is not
applicable to the facts of the present petitions. Similarly, the Circular dated 5-10-2018 also
has no application to the facts of the present petitions.
Textiles v Additional
General 2020 (35)
Gadhecha v. State of
Gujarat  114
Notice issued on
matter by Central
 148 taxmann.com 83
(Madras) VGN Projects
Estates (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant
Commissioner (State Taxes)
It was alleged that a similar show cause notice has already been issued by the Central
Authority under CGST Act, 2017 on 29-7-2022 against the petitioner, involving the very
same defects. It was submitted by the authority that a detailed reply has not been sent by
the petitioner to the impugned show cause notice and for the similar defects for which
notice has been issued by the Central Authority, such defects will be omitted and action
shall be initiated in respect of the balance defects alone.
The High Court disposed of the petition stating that the limited relief that can be granted to
the petitioner is to permit them to file a detailed reply to the impugned show cause notice,
stating all their objections that have been raised in this Writ Petition including the objection
with regard to section 6(2)(b) of the TNGST Act, 2017 and on receipt of the said reply, a
direction can be issued to the respondents to consider the said reply on merits and in
accordance with law within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.