High Court of Delhi
Vertilink Media Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Anti Evasion Branch
W.P.(C) NO. 13077 OF 2026
The ruling in brief
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.
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.
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
Provisions considered
Section 6, read with sections 73 and 74, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Section 74, read with section 73, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Section 75, read with section 73, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.