High Court of Karnataka7 July 2026

Mohammed Kamran v. Senior Intelligence Officer Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence

For revenue

WRIT PETITION NO.38771 OF 2025 (GM - RES)

The ruling in brief

Where state GST initiated inquiry against a scrap trader for discrepancies and during pendency, central GST authority commenced a wider investigation and state inquiry was formally transferred, in view of fact that there was no identical liability or overlapping action and designated central authority was competent to proceed, parallel proceedings were not impermissible

Where petitioner challenged legality of arrest alleging non-furnishing of written grounds and lack of intimation to relatives, but records showed arrest memo was served with acknowledgment and intimation was given per Guidelines of GST Investigation Wing dated 13-01-2025, arrest action conformed to statutory parameters

Provisions considered

Section 6 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Section 69, read with sections 132 and 168, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

Related rulings

Delhi High Court16 Sept 2026

For revenue

RPP Infra Projects Ltd. v. Union of India

Where infrastructure company held registrations in multiple States administratively assigned to State authorities but was investigated by DGGI Kanpur for alleged cross-State invoice chains and issued a common SCN, such investigation and issuance by DGGI were valid as DGGI officers legally possess all-India powers irrespective of tax administrative allocation, hence jurisdictional objection was not to be sustained GST: Where petitioner challenged jurisdiction of Additional or Joint Commissioner, CGST Delhi North to adjudicate common SCN citing later notifications, since prior notification and circular empowered Delhi North to adjudicate based on highest tax demand in SCN falling within Delhi, and revised allocation still mapped relevant noticee to Delhi North, jurisdictional objection to allocation was to be rejected

Delhi High Court16 Sept 2026

For revenue

Katyani Exports v. Union of India

Where DGGI issued composite show-cause notice to 146 noticees in proceedings relating to alleged IGST refund and ITC fraud, Notification No. 2/2017 as amended by Notification No. 2/2022 was held to validly confer pan-India jurisdiction on officers for DGGI SCNs and circular allocating competent adjudicating officer was held to merely regulate allocation without conferring jurisdiction, therefore jurisdictional challenge was to be rejected GST: Where composite SCN arising from DGGI investigation was assigned to common adjudicating authority based on highest amount of demand criterion, such criterion was held objective, quantifiable and uniformly applicable with rational nexus to single and consistent adjudication of one cause, and its application did not involve impermissible sub-delegation or enlargement of jurisdiction GST: Where Additional Commissioner, CGST, Delhi acting as common adjudicating authority passed order against Haryana-registered petitioners, appellate forum was held to lie before Commissioner (Appeals) of Commissionerate where common adjudicating authority was posted as already notified under Table III of Notification No. 2/2017 and clarificatory circular merely reiterated said position

CGST S.5

Delhi High Court25 Sept 2026

For revenue

Vertilink Media Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Anti Evasion Branch

Where DGGI initiated proceedings for ITC fraud against multiple noticees including petitioner while a separate proceeding was initiated by State GST officer against petitioner for denial of ITC due to non-payment of tax by supplier, bar on parallel proceedings did not apply as proceedings addressed distinct subject matters; mere commonality in petitioner, period, or transactions was insufficient to constitute identity of subject matter. GST: In case of separate proceedings under central and state Act, subsequent conclusion of DGGI proceedings did not extinguish independent demand raised by State GST officer on separate statutory grounds; absence of recovery in DGGI proceedings did not retrospectively invalidate separate proceedings concerning short payment and ITC ineligibility. GST: In case of separate proceedings under central and state Act, where petitioner was only a co-noticee in DGGI proceedings and no penalty, tax, or interest was imposed on petitioner in that matter, proceedings by State GST officer for ame act would not attract bar against penalty, as protection applies only if prior penalty on petitioner for same act is established and shown