Case Details
-
Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Chief Justice’s Court)
-
Case No.: Writ Tax No. 1861 of 2024
-
Petitioner: M/s Bio Veda Action Research Company
-
Respondents: Union of India & Others
-
Date of Judgment: 06.12.2024
-
Bench: Hon’ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice; Hon’ble Vikas Budhwar, J.
-
Relevant Sections: Section 6(2)(b) of CGST Act, 2017
-
Category: Dual proceedings / Jurisdictional Overlap
Facts (Para 1–2)
The petitioner challenged the order dated 25.08.2024 and corresponding summary in DRC-07 issued by State GST authorities. Earlier, the CGST authorities had already issued a show cause notice on 02.06.2022 covering the same subject matter. Despite this, State GST authorities issued another notice on 30.05.2024. The petitioner objected to this duplication citing Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, which restricts dual proceedings. However, the State authority proceeded and passed the order dated 25.08.2024 without addressing the objection.
Questions before the Court
-
Whether State GST authorities could initiate and adjudicate proceedings on the same issue when CGST authorities had already issued a prior notice?
-
Whether the impugned order dated 25.08.2024 was sustainable in law in view of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act?
Observations (Para 3–6)
The Court noted that the State GST notice was indeed issued subsequent to the initiation of proceedings by the CGST authorities. The State’s counsel conceded that the matter was already covered by CGST proceedings and admitted that the notice was unsustainable. The CGST counsel confirmed that proceedings were already underway and hearings had been conducted.
Judgment (Para 7)
The Court held that dual proceedings on the same issue are not permissible. Consequently, the impugned order dated 25.08.2024 was quashed and set aside. The Court clarified that CGST authorities may continue with the matter in accordance with law.
Case Law Reference Table
| Case | Court | Ratio / Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| M/s Bio Veda Action Research Co. v. Union of India (2024) | Allahabad HC | State GST proceedings quashed since CGST had already issued notice; dual proceedings barred under Section 6(2)(b). |
Between Fine Lines (Practical Takeaway)
This ruling reinforces that once a proceeding is initiated by CGST, the State GST authorities cannot issue parallel notices for the same cause of action. Businesses can rely on Section 6(2)(b) to challenge overlapping demands and prevent harassment through dual jurisdiction.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
(b) of the CGST Act when CGST){kind=link}