State authorities lack jurisdiction to adjudicate tax liability when central authorities have already initiated prior proceedings.

The Petitioner challenged an order dated 18th December 2025 passed by Respondent No. 2 (State GST Authority).

The State Authority had issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) on 2nd July 2025 regarding tax liabilities for certain entities.

However, prior to this, on 28th June 2025, Respondent No. 4 (Central GST Authority) had already issued an SCN covering 17 entities, nine of which overlapped with the State’s proceedings.

The Petitioner informed the State Authority of this prior proceeding via a communication dated 22nd July 2025.

Despite this objection, Respondent No. 2 proceeded to pass the impugned assessment order without addressing the jurisdictional bar.

1. Whether the State GST Authority (Respondent No. 2) had the jurisdiction to pass an assessment order when the Central GST Authority (Respondent No. 4) had already initiated proceedings on the same subject matter via a prior Show Cause Notice.

2. Whether the State Authority’s failure to consider the statutory mandate of Section 6 of the CGST Act vitiates the impugned order.

The court primarily applied Section 6 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”), which provides a statutory mandate to prevent multiple proceedings by different authorities on the same subject matter.

The principle establishes that where a proper officer under the Central Act or State Act has initiated any proceedings on a subject matter, no proceedings shall be initiated by another officer on the same subject matter.

The Court observed that it was undisputed that nine entities in the State’s SCN overlapped with the Central Authority’s SCN, which was issued earlier in time (28th June 2025 vs. 2nd July 2025).

The Petitioner had explicitly raised this objection under Section 6 of the CGST Act, yet Respondent No. 2 failed to address it in the final order.

The Court rejected the State’s argument that they were unaware of the Central proceedings, noting that all relevant SCNs and replies are accessible to both authorities on the common GST portal.

Consequently, because the Central Authority was already "seized of the matter," the State Authority was duty-bound to "keep their hands off" to avoid jurisdictional conflict and double jeopardy.

The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 18th December 2025.

It directed that the State’s SCN dated 2nd July 2025 be kept in abeyance.

Respondent No. 4 (CGST Authority) was directed to complete the adjudication within four months.

Respondent No. 2 may only proceed thereafter in accordance with the statutory mandate of Section 6 of the CGST Act.

The petition was allowed.