New

Published on:

March 13, 2025

Swipe Admin

Blog |

Explore GST

GST Rules

Parallel Proceedings Under GST: Meaning, Insights & Key Implications

The Saga of Parallel Proceedings Under GST: Key Insights and Implications

The Indian GST system started operation as a tax platform on July 1, 2017, to unify a complicated network of indirect taxation. Various problems have arisen from the GST implementation process, yet parallel proceedings under GST constitute the most disputed issue. The initiation of more than one audit process by various authorities results in multiple administrative processes and creates both procedural complexity and taxpayer hardship along with legal uncertainties.

This exposition investigates parallel proceeding mechanisms under GST along with analyzing both legal administrative experiences and their effects on taxpayers and enterprises and governmental agencies.

Understanding Parallel Proceedings Under GST

Parallel proceedings refer to multiple legal or administrative actions initiated by different GST authorities or investigation wings on the same taxpayer, transaction, or issue simultaneously.

In terms of section 6(2)(b) where a proper officer under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act has initiated any proceedings on a subject matter, no proceedings shall be initiated by the proper officer under this Act on the same subject matter. This typically occurs when:

1. The GST Audit Department is conducting a regular audit while the Anti-Evasion Wing starts a parallel investigation.

2. A taxpayer faces simultaneous proceedings from State GST (SGST) and Central GST (CGST) authorities.

3. The combined intervention occurs when the Director General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGCI) functions together with officers from their designated jurisdictions.

Such overlaps confuse jurisdiction, scope, authority, and procedural rights, usually leading to conflicting orders, long litigation, and operational disruption to enterprises.

Legal Framework and Provisions Enabling Parallel Proceedings

Multiple audit and investigative capabilities under the CGST Act of 2017 enable the GST law to conduct inspections and perform assessments, audits, and investigations.:

1. Section 61: Scrutiny of returns

2. Section 65: Audit by tax authorities

3. Section 66: Special audit

4. Section 67: Inspection, search, and seizure

5. Section 73 & 74: Determination of tax in cases of non-payment, short payment, or fraud

The law provides overlapping powers to multiple authorities — CGST officers, SGST officers, DGGI, and other enforcement wings. This absence of clear demarcation often triggers overlapping inquiries on the same taxpayer, resulting in parallel proceedings under GST.

Key Insights from Judicial Precedents on Parallel Proceedings

1. Principle of Double Jeopardy and Parallel Proceedings

GST law recognizes part of the double jeopardy doctrine which restricts prosecution or punishment of someone twice for the same offense. However, this applies more strictly to criminal liability, allowing civil tax proceedings to coincide. Courts have frequently interpreted this principle in the context of parallel GST audits and investigations, balancing administrative powers with taxpayer rights.

2. Coordination Between CGST and SGST Authorities

GST operates as two separate taxes through CGST and SGST, which requires intense cooperation between central and state tax authorities. The absence of efficient coordination tools causes multi-state firms to face duplicate audits and parallel notices and contradictory assessments.

Notable Case Law

Subhash Agarwalla v. State of Assam [2024 (85) G.S.T.L. 30 (Gau.)] Proceedings started under the CGST Act or the SGST Act prevent parallel proceedings from launching against the same time period under the other Act according to Guwahati High Court judgment. Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act sets a legal obligation by stating that when a proper officer from the SGST or Union Territory GST Act has started proceedings about a subject matter, no additional CGST Act proceedings will be conducted on that issue.

Causes Behind Parallel Proceedings Under GST

1. Ambiguous Jurisdictional Boundaries

With GST law allowing both central and state tax officers to exercise powers over the same taxpayer, unclear jurisdictional boundaries become fertile ground for parallel proceedings.

2. Data Sharing and Intelligence Gaps

Due to limited data-sharing protocols between various tax wings (CGST, SGST, DGGI, Income Tax, etc.), authorities often initiate independent inquiries based on incomplete intelligence, triggering parallel proceedings.

3. Overlapping Provisions and Functions

Several sections under the GST Act confer overlapping powers, leading to situations where:

a. Audit officers under Section 65 initiate proceedings.

b. Simultaneously, the anti-evasion team under Section 67 begins a search and seizure on the same set of transactions.

For more insights, must read: Appointment & Powers of Officers under GST

4. Lack of Integrated Audit Protocols

Unlike matured tax regimes where audits and investigations follow a centralized audit plan, Indian GST authorities often work independently, resulting in multiple concurrent audits on the same entity.

Implications of Parallel Proceedings on Businesses

1. Compliance Burden

Parallel proceedings impose significant compliance costs, requiring businesses to:

a. Respond to multiple notices.

b. Appear before multiple authorities.

c. Engage legal and tax professionals across jurisdictions.

2. Legal Uncertainty and Taxpayer Harassment

With different interpretations and findings by multiple authorities, businesses face legal uncertainty, often leading to conflicting tax demands and prolonged litigation.

3. Disruption to Business Operations

Frequent audits, inspections, and seizures disrupt regular operations, especially for MSMEs with limited administrative capacity.

4. Erosion of Investor Confidence

Persistent compliance harassment and inconsistent regulatory treatment erode investor confidence, especially among foreign investors evaluating the Indian market.

Policy Recommendations to Manage Parallel Proceedings

1. Integrated Audit and Investigation Framework

The GST Council should develop an integrated audit and investigation protocol, ensuring:

a. A single audit authority coordinates all tax audits and investigations.

b. Seamless data-sharing between CGST, SGST, and DGGI to avoid redundant inquiries.

2. Clearer Jurisdictional Demarcation

The GST law should be amended to delineate powers between:

a. Central GST Authorities (CBIC)

b. State GST Authorities

c. DGGI and Anti-Evasion Wings

3. Standard Operating Procedures for Coordination

Formulate SOPs for inter-authority coordination, mandating:

a. Prior communication between CGST and SGST officers before initiating audits.

b. Consolidation of parallel proceedings into one comprehensive investigation where feasible.

4. Dispute Resolution and Pre-Audit Consultation

Introduce mandatory pre-audit consultation, allowing taxpayers to:

a. Clarify transactional details.

b. Resolve minor discrepancies without triggering full-fledged audits or investigations.

Judicial Trends and Their Future Impact

1. Increasing Judicial Scrutiny

Courts are increasingly recognizing the harassment caused by parallel proceedings and intervening to quash duplicate notices and conflicting tax demands. This judicial trend signals:

a. The judiciary’s pro-taxpayer approach.

b. Growing emphasis on natural justice and due process under GST.

2. Recognition of Economic Impact

Current judicial attitudes embrace understanding about how high regulatory costs affect both small businesses and start-ups economically. The judiciary system has issued multiple business-friendly decisions that prioritize fair practices, together with business transparency alongside streamlined business operations.

3. Evolution Towards a Unified Compliance Regime

Judicial decisions tend to advocate the development of unified technology-based systems which unify information at all times to prevent parallel court procedures.

Role of Technology in Minimizing Parallel Proceedings

1. Centralized GST Compliance Portals

A centralized compliance portal can enable:

a. Unified audit trails.

b. Real-time data sharing between CGST, SGST, and DGGI.

c. Automated alerts to prevent redundant notices.

2. AI-Powered Risk Profiling

AI tools can enable risk-based audit selection, reducing arbitrary and overlapping audits.

3. Blockchain-Enabled Transaction Monitoring

Using blockchain technology to record GST transactions can create an immutable audit trail, ensuring that:

a. Each transaction is verified once.

b. Subsequent audits rely on the same verified data.

Conclusion

The saga of parallel proceedings under GST highlights the growing pains of India's GST regime. While the law aims for tax transparency and compliance, fragmented regulatory oversight results in:

a. Administrative inefficiency.

b. Taxpayer distress.

c. Erosion of business confidence.

GST compliance can move ahead by promoting laws that are easier to interpret and develop synchronized mechanisms as well as implementing technology-based compliance systems. A “Good and Simple Tax” tax status for India's GST can materialize by adopting these measures, which will create both a friendly business climate and durable tax compliance.

Also Read: All you need to know about the Opportunity for a Personal Hearing under GST Law.

FAQs

1. What are parallel proceedings under GST?

Ans. Separate taxpayer or transaction investigations by the GTST authorities (CGST, SGST and DGGI) occurring simultaneously results in parallel proceedings.

2. Are parallel proceedings allowed under GST?

Ans. GST law doesn’t explicitly ban parallel proceedings, but courts have stressed the need for coordination to avoid harassment and duplicative actions.

3. What problems do parallel proceedings cause?

Ans. They lead to higher compliance costs, conflicting demands, business disruptions, legal uncertainty, and long litigation.

4. Can taxpayers challenge parallel proceedings?

Ans. Yes, taxpayers can file writ petitions in High Courts, citing natural justice, abuse of process, or double jeopardy (where applicable).

5. How can businesses manage parallel proceedings?

Ans. Keep clear GST records, respond quickly to notices, hire expert consultants, monitor central and state notices, and approach courts if needed.

6. How can the government reduce parallel proceedings?

Ans. By clarifying jurisdiction, enforcing mandatory coordination, creating a centralized audit system, enabling data sharing, and simplifying dispute resolution.

‍