M/S Smart Tech Solutions LLP And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Held

The Court took note of the submissions made by the respondents, particularly the letter dated 08.05.2026 from the Senior Intelligence Officer, DGGI (respondent No. 4). This letter clarified that to avoid duplicity of work, the case initiated by the DGGI had been forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner, Central GST (respondent No. 3). Furthermore, the investigation proceedings had been discontinued and closed by the DGGI's office. In light of this development, which addressed the petitioners' grievance regarding parallel proceedings, the Court found no further orders to be required in the writ petition. The Court did not delve into the legality of initiating parallel proceedings per se, as the immediate issue of duplicity was resolved by the respondents' actions.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s Smart Tech Solutions LLP and its partner Sri Ankush Bajoria, filed a writ petition challenging parallel proceedings initiated against them by the Assistant Commissioner, Central GST (respondent No. 3) and the Senior Intelligence Officer, DGGI (respondent No. 4). These proceedings pertained to the same subject matter, transactions, and assessment periods. The respondents submitted written arguments, including a letter dated 08.05.2026 from respondent No. 4. This letter stated that to avoid duplication of work, the case initiated by respondent No. 4 had been forwarded to respondent No. 3. Consequently, the investigation proceedings were discontinued and closed by respondent No. 4's office.

Key Issues

1. Whether the initiation of parallel proceedings by different authorities under the Central GST Act, 2017, concerning the same subject matter, transactions, and assessment periods, is legally valid and permissible? (Question of law) Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners contended that the initiation of parallel proceedings by respondent No. 3 (Audit Department) and respondent No. 4 (DGGI) for the same subject matter and periods amounted to duplicity and harassment. They sought to quash these parallel actions. Revenue's Argument: The respondents, through their written submissions, indicated that the issue of parallel proceedings was being addressed. They submitted a letter from respondent No. 4 stating that the investigation had been forwarded to respondent No. 3 to avoid duplicity and that the DGGI proceedings were discontinued and closed.