M/S United Bakers Cooperative Society Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax (CT)

,/ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRJ APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No. 7427 of 2026 DATED :23.04.2026 Bctween: M/s. United Bakers Cooperative Society Limited AND ... Petitioner Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax (Court)' Malkajgiri Division, Range-III, Old Bowcnpally' Secunderabad and fou r others ... Respondents OR.DER: Ms. Akruti Goyal, learned counsel appears for petitioner. Mr. Dominic Fernandes. lcarned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board o[ Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) appears for respondent Nos. l, 2 and 4. 2. Two adjudication orders, Orders-ln-Original dated 22.08.2025 and 13 . I I .2025 covering the same tax period from April, 2021 ' to March,2022, have been assailed primarily on the ground of overlapping on the subject matter.

HCJ (AKrS, J)& OMM, J ' P No742? ot 2026 l0 dated 19.06.2025 and the petitioner filed its reply on 26.08.2025 After considering the petitioner's reply, the first charge relating to discrepancy betrveen GSTR-l vs. GSTR-3B was not proceeded in thc show cause notice dated 15.09.2025 which rvas confined to excess lnput Tax Crcdit (I'l'C) ctaimed on invoices not rctlected in GSTR-2A as per GS'IR-9,

"

3 HCJ lAKrS, J) & GMM, J w P.No 7a27 ol m26 iii. Intelligence based enforcement action can be initiated by any one of the Central or the State tax administrations despite the taxpayer having bcen assigned to the other administration. iv. Parallel proceedings should not be initiated by other tax administration when one of the tax administrations has already initiated intel ligence-based enforcement action. v. All actions that are iniriated as a measure for probing an inquiry or gathering of evidence or information do not constitute "proceedings" within the meaning of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. vi. The expression "lnitiation of any proceedings" occuning in Section 6(2Xb) refers to the lormal commencement of adjudicatory proceedings by way of issuance of a show cause notice, and does not encompass the issuance of summons, or the conduct of any search, or seizure etc. vii. The expression "subject matter" refers to any tax liability, deficiency, or obligation arising from any particular contravention which the Department seeks to assess or recover. viii. Where any two proceedings initiated by the Department seek to assess or recover an identical or a partial overlap in the tax liability, deficiency or obligation arising from any particular contravention, the bar of Scction 6(2)(b) would be immediately attracted. ix. Where the proceedings concern distinct infractions, the same would not constitute a "same subject matter" even if the tax liability, deficiency, or obligation is same or similar, and the bar under Section 6(2)(b) would not be attracted. x. The nvofold test lor determining whether a subject matter is "same" entails, first, determining if an authority has already proceeded on an identical liability of tax or alleged offence by the assessee on the same facts, and secondly, if the demand or relief sought is identical.

HCJ (AKrS. J)& OMM, J w .P No 7 427 ot 2026 onc authorifv- another inquiry or investigation on the same subject nraller is iniliatcd by a dilferent authority. a. Where a summons or a slrorv cause notice is rssued bt cither the Central or the State tax authority to an asscssee, the assessee is, in the first instance, obliged to complv by appearing and furnishing tle requisite rcsponsc. as thc case may be. We say. so because. mere issuarrcc of a summons does not enable either the issuing authority or the recipient to ascertain that proceedings have heen in itiated. b. Where an assessee becomes aware that the matter being inquired into or investigated is already the subject ol an irrquiry or investigation by another authority, the asscssce shall lorthwith inform, in u,riting, the authority that haj initiated the subsequenl inquiry or investrgalion. c. Upon receipt of such intimation from the assessec. the respective tax authorities shall comrnunicate with cach othcr lo verify the veracitl' ol'the assessee's claim. \'e say, so as this course of action would obviate needless duplication of proceedings and ensure optimal utilizati,ln of the Department's time, elIort, and resources, bcaring in mind that action initiated b), one aurhoriry enures t,) benefit of all. d. II the claim of the taxable person regarding the overlap of inquiries is found untenable, and the investigations of the two authorities perlain to dilferent "subjcct nratters", an intimation to this effcct, along with the reasons and a specification of the distinct subject nratters. slrall be immediately conveyed in writing to the taxablc pcrson. e. The taxing authorities are well within their rights to condrrct an inquiry or investigation until it is asce(ained (hat both authorities arc examining the identical liability ro be discharged. the same contra\,ention alleged. or the issuance ol a shou, cause 4 I \

5 HCJ (AXrs, Jl & CMM, J W P No ?a27 of 2026 notice. Any show cause notic€ issued in respect of a liability already covered by an existing show cause notice shall be quashed. [. However, ifthe Central or the State tax authority, as the case may be finds that the mafter being inquired into or investigated by it is already the subjecr of inquiry or investigation by another authority, both -authorities shall decide inter-se which of them shall continue with the inquiry or investigation. In such a scenario the other authority shall duly forward all material and information relating to its inquiry or investigation into the matter to the authority designared to carry the inquiry or investigation to its logical conclusion. We say, so because, the taxable person except lor being alforded the statutory protection from duplication of proceedings, otherwise has no locus to claim which authority should proceed with the inquiry or investigation in a particular matter. g. However, where the authorities are unable to reach a decision as to which of them shall continue with the inquiry or investigation, then in such circumstances, the authority that first iniriated the inquiry or investigation shall be empowered to carry it to its logical conclusion, and the courts in such a case would be competent to pass an order for transferring the inquiry or investigation to that authority. h. lf it is found that the authorities are not complying with these aforementioned guidelines, it shall be open to the taxable person to file a writ petition before the concerned High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution ol lndia. i. At the same time, taxable persons shall ensure complete cooperation with the authorities. lt is incumbent upon them to appear in response to a summons and-/or reply to a notice." i I t,t:;il

HCJ (AKrS. Jl & CM[r, J w P Na 7427 o{ 2026

HC., (AKrs, J)& cMM, J W .P 110.7427 of 2026

HIGH COURT DATED: 2310412026 E S,,Ai ( <.i t. ^ o .J \'3. \.rz \. 2 0 tlAY 2U6 I ORDER WP.No.7427 ot 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS fi, .+,4 '!rr-rnrr*p)7' J I 0\ 3 J.,'