Supreme Court stays DGGI order on the issue of bar on two parallel GST proceedings in terms of Section 6(2)(b) of GST Act
In a recent order, Hon’ble Supreme Court admitted SLP against the judgment of the Bombay High Court which held that law laid down by Supreme Court on two parallel GST proceedings best be examined by Appellate Authority.
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4855 (2025) (11) abcaus.in SC
In the instant case, the Petitioner before the Bombay High Court challenging the order passed by the Central GST Intelligence Authorities (DGGI) contending that they could not have initiated any proceedings or passed the order because the State Authorities had already initiated proceedings and passed an order for the relevant years.
The Hon’ble High Court noted that admittedly, the State Government’s order did not include the entire period for which the Central Government had initiated the proceedings or passed the order.
The counsel for DGGI opposed the Petition stating that the scope of the Central Government proceedings is much broader and not as restrictive as those initiated by the State Authorities.
The Hon’ble High Court noted that recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court had laid down detailed guidelines (4697 (2025) (08) abcaus.in SC) on the subject of parallel inquiry or investigation by one GST authority, when another inquiry or investigation on the same subject matter is initiated by a different GST authority.
The Hon’ble High Court opined that there are several intricate issues which would be needed to be examined to determine whether the principle established by the Apex Court could be stated to be attracted to the facts of the present case and the Appellate Authority can best undertake the said exercise.
The Hon’ble High Court further opined that the Petitioner did not make out any exceptional case to deviate us the practice of exhaustion of alternate remedies as laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court which in turn referred to several precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard.
Therefore, the Hon’ble High Court declined to entertain the Petition but gave the Petitioner liberty to challenge the impugned order by instituting an Appeal under the provisions of the CGST Act.
Not satisfied with the judgment of the High Court, the Petitioner challenged it before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of filing a Special Leave Petition.
The Petitioner submitted that Section 6(2)(b) of GST Act bars duplicate or parallel proceedings, and therefore, Courts below manifestly erred in relying upon the circulars which cannot override the statutes.
The Apex Court admitted the SLP and stayed the order passed by the Central GST Authority.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
Mere CBDT Instructions cannot absolve individuals of their obligation to explain the source and nature of their gold holdings, even…
Empanelment of General Observers for ICSI Examinations December 2026 ICSI has invited interested members to enroll as General Observers for…
ITAT answers some important and inter-related issues relating to deduction u/s 80IA In a recent judgment, ITAT has dealt with…
Carry forward of loss can not be denied for belated return, it is only the set off in subsequent year…
Where sales are duly recorded in books and VAT returns, to treat it bogus sales, AO must bringing cogent adverse…
Expenses to celebrate Diwali with staff creates a goodwill and, therefore amounts to expenses incurred for the purpose of business…