Kerala HC Bars Parallel Adjudication by Intelligence Wing When Proper GST Officer Has Jurisdiction | Biz Flow Kit

The Kerala High Court has ruled that officers of the Intelligence Wing cannot initiate parallel adjudication proceedings when jurisdiction has already been exercised by the proper officer under the GST framework.

The bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A stated that the jurisdiction under GST is regulatory and should be granted.

The core issue of the dispute centres on the authority of Intelligence Officers and Anti-Evasion authorities to independently start adjudication proceedings under Sections 73 or 74 of the GST Acts. This situation arises when a taxpayer is already facing proceedings from jurisdictional officers.

The petitioners presented their case by highlighting the issues arising from parallel actions, which they argued led to uncertainty, infringed upon natural justice principles, and violated the established statutory framework for power allocation. They asserted that although Intelligence Wings are authorised to conduct investigations, the process of adjudication should be reserved exclusively for properly appointed officials.

The Court analysed the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and the Kerala State GST Act scheme, especially provisions of the appointment and empowerment of proper officers.

The Bench mentioned that Intelligence Officers are authorised to perform inspection, search and investigation. But, adjudication proceedings need to be started merely by officers effectively assigned jurisdiction via regulatory authorisation. In the identical case, parallel proceedings via multiple authorities are not allowable.

The Court said that it was directed to multiplicity of proceedings and administrative inconsistency.

Read Also: Kerala HC Directs Adjudicating Authority to Respond to Taxpayer’s Reply U/S 74 of GST Act

In a series of related cases involving petitions from various stakeholders such as proprietors, companies, associations, and individuals, the Court dismissed the challenged notices that had been issued without appropriate jurisdiction.

From the ruling, it cited that any additional measure needs to be undertaken merely by the competent jurisdictional officer within the statute.