Parallel GST proceedings on same show-cause notice u/s6(2)(b) barred; State GST order quashed, writ allowed.

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT- M/s. Electronic City Motors v. Union of India & Ors.
Writ Petition No. 7050 of 2025 (T-RES)- Decision dated 08 December 2025

 Case Note: The judgment of the Karnataka High Court in M/s. Electronic City Motors v. Union of India & Ors. is another authoritative pronouncement reinforcing the statutory embargo on dual and parallel GST proceedings under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017. The ruling consolidates a consistent line of Karnataka High Court jurisprudence holding that once proceedings are initiated by either the Central GST or State GST authorities on a particular subject matter, the other wing is jurisdictionally barred from initiating proceedings on the same subject.

Factual Matrix :- The petitioner was subjected to an Order-in-Original dated 20.01.2025 passed by the Central GST authorities under Section 74(1) read with Section 122(2)(b) of the CGST Act for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018, followed by a summary order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 23.01.2025. The gravamen of the petitioner’s challenge was not merely procedural irregularity, but a foundational jurisdictional defect—namely, that the Central GST authorities had proceeded despite prior initiation of proceedings by the State GST authorities on the same subject matter, in direct contravention of Section 6(2)(b).

Core Legal Issue :Whether the impugned adjudication order and its summary were without jurisdiction, having been issued in violation of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, which expressly prohibits initiation of proceedings by one authority where proceedings on the same subject matter have already been initiated by the other.

Statutory Framework: Section 6(2)(b) Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act embodies the principle of “one subject matter – one authority”, and provides that where a proper officer under the State GST Act has initiated proceedings, no proceedings shall be initiated by the proper officer under the CGST Act on the same subject matter, and vice versa. The provision is jurisdictional in nature and not merely procedural.

Reliance on Binding Precedent : The Court noted that the controversy was squarely covered by its earlier decision in Sharadapura Krishna Chandra v. Superintendent of Central Tax (W.P. No. 11540/2025, decided on 30.10.2025). In that case, the Court had undertaken an exhaustive analysis of Section 6 and quashed parallel proceedings initiated by Central and State GST authorities relating to the same transactions.

The judgment also reiterated and relied upon a trilogy of earlier binding precedents:

(i)       Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India – 2024 (10) TMI 1240 (Kar),

(ii)     Huida Sanitaryware India Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax (W.P. No. 14068/2023, decided on 19.09.2024),

(iii)    Toyota Logistics Kishor India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka – 2024 (10) TMI 1384 (Kar).

These decisions uniformly hold that Section 6(2)(b) creates a complete bar on parallel proceedings, and any adjudication undertaken in breach thereof is void ab initio for lack of jurisdiction.

Court’s Reasoning The High Court observed that:

(i)       The initiation of proceedings by Central GST authorities, despite prior action by State GST authorities, was statutorily impermissible.

(ii)     Jurisdiction under GST law is not concurrent in the sense of permitting parallel action; rather, it is mutually exclusive once triggered.

(iii)    The defect was not curable by relegating the petitioner to alternate remedies such as appeal, since lack of jurisdiction strikes at the root of the proceedings.

Given that the matter was fully covered by Sharadapura Krishna Chandra, the Court found no reason to re-adjudicate the issue afresh.

Operative Directions The High Court:

(i)       Allowed the writ petition,

(ii)     Quashed the Order-in-Original dated 20.01.2025 and the summary order dated 23.01.2025, and

(iii)    Held that the impugned orders were without authority of law, having been issued in violation of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.

 Ratio Decidendi :- Once proceedings are initiated by either Central GST or State GST authorities on a given subject matter, Section 6(2)(b) statutorily bars initiation of parallel proceedings by the other authority, and any adjudication in breach of this mandate is void for want of jurisdiction.