Once proceedings have been drawn and finalized on the same issue, subsequent proceedings cannot be initiated by another authority

Facts of the case: – The petitioner challenges the Demand Order DRC-07 dated 30.12.2023, issued for the tax period from July 2017 to March 2018 under the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (TGST Act) and Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The petitioner argues that the Demand Order is invalid because the Central Authority has already initiated and concluded action on the same matter, passing an Order-in-Original on 31.10.2023.

This Order-in-Original was already being contested before the same court (W.P.No.1357 of 2024), which had granted an interim order on 12.01.2024. According to Section 6 of the CGST Act, if proceedings have been finalized on the same facts by one authority, another cannot initiate separate proceedings.

The State authorities claim they lacked information about the Order-in-Original from the Central Authority before issuing their Demand Order. They also contend that the Central Government's Circular dated 23.11.2023 (Circular No.4 of 2023) mandates orders to be uploaded electronically for legal enforceability, which was not done in this case.

Held that – 

• The court noted that Section 6 of the CGST Act prevents subsequent proceedings on the same facts once finalized by one authority.
• The court found that the Order-in-Original by Central Authority was communicated to the State authorities, indicating they were informed.
• Therefore, the court held that the lack of electronic uploading of the order does not justify the State authorities' initiation of separate proceedings.
• The petitioner's correspondence shows that timely intimation was given to the authorities about the Order-in-Original.

The court quashed the impugned Demand Order dated 30.12.2023, concluding it was unsustainable under the law. The writ petition was allowed.

To read the complete judgment 2024 Taxo.online 784