Parallel GST Proceedings Consolidated: DGGI Transfers Case to State GST Officer

By | June 5, 2025

Parallel GST Proceedings Consolidated: DGGI Transfers Case to State GST Officer

Issue:

Whether parallel proceedings initiated by both the State GST Officer and the Senior Intelligence Officer, DGGI, are permissible, and what recourse is available to an assessee aggrieved by such dual proceedings.

Facts:

The assessee was aggrieved by the initiation of parallel proceedings by two different authorities: the State GST Officer and the Senior Intelligence Officer, DGGI. This grievance arose from a notice issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), requiring the assessee to give evidence and produce documents. The assessee filed a petition seeking substantive relief against these parallel proceedings.

The State GST Officer submitted that a summon had been issued to the assessee, to which the assessee had already submitted a reply. It was further contended by the State GST Officer that the Senior Intelligence Officer, DGGI, had initiated proceedings much later than the State GST Officer. Therefore, it was suggested that the assessee should be directed to respond to the State GST Officer for concluding the proceedings.

Decision:

The court, upon reviewing the records, found that the Senior Intelligence Officer, DGGI, had already transferred the proceedings, and they were now pending before the State GST Officer. Accordingly, the petition filed by the assessee was disposed of. The decision was effectively in favor of the assessee as the grievance of parallel proceedings was resolved by consolidation.

Key Takeaways:

  • Avoidance of Parallel Proceedings: While Section 6 of the CGST Act (read with the respective State GST Acts) generally allows both central and state authorities to exercise powers, the intention is to avoid harassment to taxpayers through parallel investigations on the same subject matter.
  • Role of DGGI and State Authorities: The Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) is a central intelligence agency, while State GST Officers operate under their respective state jurisdictions. Both have powers to investigate GST evasion.
  • Transfer of Proceedings: In cases where parallel proceedings are initiated by different authorities on the same subject, it is a common and desirable practice to consolidate the proceedings under one authority to prevent duplication of effort, conflicting demands, and harassment of the assessee.
  • Resolution Through Consolidation: The court’s decision to dispose of the petition because the DGGI had already transferred the proceedings to the State GST Officer effectively resolves the assessee’s grievance of parallel proceedings, as the proceedings are now unified under a single authority.
  • Section 70 of CGST Act: This section grants the power to issue summons to persons to give evidence and produce documents for inquiries.
  • In Favour of Assessee (Procedurally): Although no pronouncement on the merits of the demand was made, the decision is in favor of the assessee as it streamlines the investigation process, preventing the burden of responding to two separate agencies for the same issue.
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Prime Steel Industries (P.) Ltd.
v.
State of H.P.
Tarlok singh chauhan and Sushil Kukreja, JJ.
CWP No. 616 of 2025
MAY  1, 2025
Shrawan Dogra, Sr. Adv, Manik Sethi, Adv. for the Petitioner. Navlesh Verma, Addl. A.G, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Addl. A.G., Vijay K. Arora, Sr. Adv., Ms. Aastha Kohli, Adv. for the Respondent.
ORDER
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. – The petitioner being aggrieved by the initiation of parallel proceedings by respondent No.1 as well as respondent No.2 by virtue of notice issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, has approached this Court by filing the instant petition for grant of the following substantive relief:-
“A) A writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the summons dated 13.12.2024 (Annexure P-8), issued by the Respondent no. 2 and consequential action of blocking the credit ledger of the petitioner on 01.01.2025 on the GST Portal on dated 01.01.2025 (Annexure P-10) & 06.01.2025 (Annexure P-14) as the same are without jurisdiction and in the teeth of Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017. “
2. On 17.03.2025, the Court passed the following order:-
“Even though the State has filed instructions dated 15.3.2025, however we are of the considered view that the stand of the respondent-State must be reflected on affidavit. Therefore, necessary affidavit be filed within two weeks.
List on 10.4.2025. In the meanwhile, reply on behalf of respondent No.2 be also filed.”
3. In compliance to the aforesaid orders, respondent No.1 has filed affidavit, wherein it is averred that the summon/notice had been issued to the petitioner on 03.08.2021 by the Assistant Commissioner State Taxes and Excise-cum-proper Officer, to which, the petitioner had submitted its reply on 17.08.2021. It is further averred that in the instant case, respondent No.2 had initiated the proceedings against the petitioner much later than the proceedings initiated by respondent No.1. Accordingly, respondent No.1 has conclude the proceedings under the CGST/HPGST Rules, 2017.
4. The record reveals that respondent No.2 i.e. Senior Intelligence Officer, DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit has now transferred the proceedings and the same are pending before the 1st respondent, as is evident from letter dated 24.04.2025, which reads thus:-
“In continuation to this office letter No. 6533 dated, 15th March, 2025 on the above. In this context, it is submitted that the instant case has already been transferred to this office by the Respondent No. 2 i.e. Senior Intelligence Officer, DGGI Meerut Zonal Unit, Ground Floor, Opp. Saheed Park, Delhi Road, Meerut vide letter No.DGGI/INV/GST/2295/2021/Pt TV/4910 dated 28.02.2025 (copy enclosed).”
5. Since the proceedings now stand transferred by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1, the instant petition has achieved its purpose and is disposed of accordingly.
6. As regards the ‘blocked credit ledger’, learned counsel for respondent No.2, on instructions, submits that the same stands unblocked and such averments has specifically been made in para 3 of the reply. The relevant portion thereof reads as under:-
“Further, communication dated 23.12.2024 received from the petitioner, was considered and its investigation has already been transferred to respondent No.1 and unblocked the Input Tax Credit.”
7. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any.