Order Date – 16 June 2025

Parties: Truvolt Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs The Additional Assistant Director, Director General of GST Intelligence & Ors.

Facts –

• The Petitioner, Truvolt Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd., was issued a show cause notice on 29th November 2024 by the GST officer following an audit under Section 65 of the CGST/WBGST Act for FY 2019–2022. Simultaneously, the Additional Assistant Director of the DGGI initiated a separate investigation for the same period through a notice dated 21st/22nd November 2024.
• Additionally, the State GST authorities had already begun search and seizure proceedings under Section 67, evidenced by a Panchnama dated 22nd August 2024 and an email dated 16th May 2024. These proceedings remain pending, yet the DGGI launched a parallel investigation despite the ongoing State action.
• The petitioner argued that multiple simultaneous proceedings (audit, search, investigation) for the same period by different authorities (State and Central) is impermissible and leads to harassment.

Issue –

• Whether simultaneous proceedings under different chapters of the Act for the same period are legally permissible?

Order –

• The Single Bench of Hon’ble High Court observed that Prima facie, the statute does not create any embargo on the authorities to proceed simultaneously under Chapter XIII and Chapter XIV of the said Act. However, at the same time, having regard to the special provision contained in Section 65(7) of the said Act and the GST officer having conducted an audit and having issued a show cause, ordinarily, the registered taxable persons are not to be subjected to multiple enquiries by different authorities without such authorities bringing the search and seizure proceeding to a logical conclusion. Admittedly, in this case, the State has already initiates search and seizure which has not brought to a logical conclusion.
• At this stage, the Central Authority should not be permitted to proceed simultaneously with regard to the period for which the State has been proceeding.
• In view thereof, the enquiry, if any, by the DGGI authorities should be restricted to the period for which the proceeding has already not been initiated by the State.