Parallel proceedings by state and central authorities
Two authorities, one taxpayer, one period. The statute intends one proceeding.
Section 6(2)(b) provides that where a proper officer under the State or Union territory Act has initiated any proceedings on a subject matter, no proceedings shall be initiated by the proper officer under the CGST Act on the same subject matter, and the converse applies under the State Acts. Circular guidance and a body of High Court decisions have applied this to restrain parallel investigations and adjudications on the same subject matter and period, and the objection must be taken at the earliest opportunity with the documents establishing the first proceeding.
The provision and its scope
The bar operates on the same subject matter. Two authorities may examine different issues for the same period, but not the same issue.
The question in practice is what constitutes the same subject matter. Where the state authority has examined credit from a particular supplier and the central authority takes up the same supplier chain, the subject matter is the same.
Where one authority has examined classification and another examines credit, the subject matters differ and both may proceed.
The objection is jurisdictional and should be raised in the first reply, with the earlier notice, the earlier reply and any order annexed.
How to raise it
Build a proceedings register: authority, period, subject matter, notice date, current status. Most groups cannot answer these questions quickly, which is why the objection is raised late.
In the reply, set out the two proceedings side by side and identify the overlap precisely.
Ask the later authority to transfer or drop the proceeding, and copy the earlier authority.
Where both proceed, a writ is the practical remedy, and courts have restrained the later proceeding where the overlap was demonstrated.
Related situations
Investigation by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence alongside a state audit on the same issue.
Audit under Section 65 followed by an anti evasion investigation on the same findings, which is not necessarily barred but should be objected to where the subject matter is identical.
Multiple state authorities examining the same intra group transaction from opposite ends, which raises a coordination question rather than a Section 6 bar.
A notice for the same issue for successive years by different authorities, where consistency and the Section 6 bar should both be pleaded.
What to do on Monday
Maintain a proceedings register across all registrations with authority, period and subject matter.
Raise the Section 6(2)(b) objection in the first reply, with the earlier notice annexed.
Copy the earlier authority when objecting to the later proceeding.
Move a writ where both proceed on the same subject matter.
This page states the general position. A reader with a specific question on their own facts may write to the GST practice at AMLEGALS.
Write to the GST practiceQuestions we are asked on this
Can both the state and the centre investigate us?
Not on the same subject matter for the same period. On different subject matters they may.
What is the same subject matter?
The same issue, not merely the same period. Identify the overlap precisely in the reply.
When should the objection be raised?
In the first reply. Raised late, it is met with the argument that you participated without demur.
Does an audit bar a later investigation?
Not automatically, but where the investigation covers the same findings the objection is available.
What is the remedy if both proceed?
A writ, with the two proceedings placed side by side and the overlap demonstrated.
In this cluster
- GST enforcement: search, seizure, summons, arrest and attachment in one map
- Section 70 summons: your rights, your obligations and your record
- Section 67 search and seizure: the conditions that must be satisfied
- Section 69 arrest under GST: when it is legal and when it is not
- Section 132 prosecution: offences, thresholds and compounding
- Radha Krishan Industries: provisional attachment is draconian, and the conditions are strict
- Radhika Agarwal: the Supreme Court's 2025 safeguards on GST and customs arrest
- Bank account attachment: getting it lifted fast
- Anticipatory bail and regular bail in GST offences
- Statements recorded during investigation and their evidentiary value
GST Insights is published by AMLEGALS for general information. Law stated as on 3 September 2026. Not advice on any particular set of facts; not an advertisement or a solicitation under Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules. Readers with a question on their own facts may write to the GST practice of their own accord.