No, The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Truvolt Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Additional Assistant Director, DGGI & Ors. [2025 TAXONATION 1516 (CALCUTTA)] held that once audit proceedings have been concluded and a show cause notice under Section 65(7) of the CGST Act has been issued, the taxpayer should not be subjected to multiple inquiries by different authorities for the same period. In this case, the petitioner challenged a notice issued by the DGGI authorities dated 21/22.11.2024, followed by another on 30.05.2025, arguing that an earlier audit had already been concluded for April 2019 to March 2022 and a show cause notice was issued. Further, a search and seizure had also been initiated by the State Authorities under Section 67 for subsequent years, but not concluded. The petitioners contended that continuing proceedings by the DGGI for the same period amounted to parallel and overlapping jurisdiction. The DGGI argued that there was no statutory bar against simultaneous action under Sections 65, 66, and 67, and the investigation pertained to fraud by the petitioner. The Hon’ble Court, however, observed that while the CGST Act does not impose an absolute bar on simultaneous proceedings under different chapters, the spirit of Section 65(7) requires that after issuance of a show cause notice post-audit, the assessee should not be exposed to repeated proceedings for the same period unless prior proceedings are brought to their logical conclusion. Consequently, the Court restrained the DGGI from proceeding further with the investigation for the overlapping tax period and held that any inquiry by the DGGI should be confined only to the period not already covered by the State's action. The matter was adjourned for further consideration after completion of pleadings.
Author’s Comments:
While the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has rightly emphasized the need to avoid multiplicity of proceedings for the same period, it must be understood that the statutory scheme under the CGST Act does not create an absolute embargo on concurrent action by different wings—provided the cause of action is distinct.
In the author’s considered view, Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act is designed to harmonize jurisdictional overlap between central and state authorities, and not to create a blanket bar on multiple proceedings per se. An audit under Section 65 primarily focuses on the regularity of accounts and compliance as reflected in books of accounts, while investigation under Section 67 is aimed at unearthing tax evasion, suppression, or fraud based on reasons to believe. The two operate in different planes.
Merely because an audit has concluded for a particular period and an SCN has been issued, it does not foreclose the department's right to initiate an investigation under Section 67 for the same period—if the facts, cause of action, or nature of default are different. What is barred, and rightly so, is re-examining the same cause of action or factual matrix under the garb of a new proceeding, leading to double jeopardy and harassment.
In fact, even overlapping periods are permissible where the subject matter differs. For example, if audit proceedings focused on ITC mismatches and procedural lapses, and later an investigation surfaces a separate undisclosed supply chain through intelligence inputs, both proceedings can validly co-exist. What is prohibited is duplicative action for the same allegation under multiple mechanisms.
Thus, the ruling should not be construed to mean that post-audit, the hands of enforcement agencies are tied.
GST Case Law Truvolt Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Additional Assistant Director, DGGI & Ors.
Citation-2025 TAXONATION 1516 (CALCUTTA)
CA Ritesh Arora(Click here to read full case law)
SUBSCRIBE GST E-LIBRARY (INDIA'S HIGHEST GST CASE LAW DATA)
FOR MORE UPDATE ON GST/ IT JOIN OUR FREE WHATSAPP GROUP BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK https://chat.whatsapp.com/C8VB6F6VHme3A061UDQKhj
