Mohammed Kamran v. Senior Intelligence Officer Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence
In favour of the revenue
The ruling in brief
Mohammed Kamran, a scrap trader, challenged parallel GST investigations before the High Court of Karnataka (Writ Petition No. 38771 of 2025, decided 7 July 2026). State GST had initiated an inquiry into discrepancies in his transactions; during its pendency the Directorate General of GST Intelligence commenced a wider investigation into related supply chains, and the state inquiry was formally transferred to the central authority. The petitioner invoked Section 6 of the CGST Act to argue that dual proceedings were barred. The court examined Sections 6, 69, 132, and 168 and found no identical liability or overlapping adjudication on the same cause of action. The designated central authority was competent to proceed on its own investigative material. Parallel investigation was held permissible. The writ was dismissed in favour of the revenue. This summary is for professional reference on officer jurisdiction, not legal advice.
For information only — not legal advice. Read the full judgment and applicable law before relying on this summary.
Provisions considered
- CGST S.6 — Authorisation of officers and concurrent State tax jurisdiction.
- CGST S.69 — Power to arrest in specified offence cases.
- CGST S.132 — Punishment for certain offences; cognizable/non-cognizable classification.
- CGST S.168 — Power to issue instructions or directions by the Board.
Source documents
Similar rulings
In favour of the revenue
Krishna Industries v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax
Krishna Industries filed a writ before the High Court of Delhi (W.P.(C) No. 4897 of 2025, 18 September 2026) challenging central GST action while state authorities were proceeding under Section 73. The assessee had claimed input tax credit on invoices from a supplier; state and central authorities invoked different provisions—Section 73 at the state level and Section 74 at the central level—based on distinct intelligence regarding alleged bogus transactions. The assessee argued that Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act barred parallel proceedings. The court held that commonality of assessee, period, or ITC amount was insufficient to treat the actions as overlapping when the assessee held different GSTINs and the subject matter and investigative material differed. Central proceedings were not impermissible. The writ was dismissed in favour of the revenue.
In favour of the revenue
RPP Infra Projects Ltd. v. Union of India
RPP Infra Projects Ltd. challenged DGGI Kanpur's investigation before the High Court of Delhi (W.P.(C) Nos. 10852, 10853, 10861 of 2025, decided 16 September 2026). The infrastructure company held GST registrations in multiple States, administratively assigned to respective state commissionerates, but DGGI issued a common show cause notice alleging cross-State invoice chains and bogus credits. The assessee objected that only state-assigned officers could act on its registrations. The court reasoned under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, and 168 of the CGST Act that officers of the Directorate General possess all-India powers irrespective of tax administrative allocation. Investigation and notice by DGGI were valid. The jurisdictional challenge failed and the writ was dismissed in favour of the Union of India. Multi-state registrants cannot limit DGGI inquiry by administrative assignment alone.
In favour of the assessee
Venkatasubbaiah C v. Superintendent of Central Tax
Partners operating a battery recycling firm (Karnataka High Court, Criminal Petition 9023 of 2026, 12 August 2026, S. Vishwajith Shetty, J.) sought anticipatory bail amid allegations of fictitious suppliers, bogus ITC and untraceable vendors under Sections 69 and 132 CGST. Revenue argued supplier cancellations proved fraud; petitioners maintained valid registration, documented purchases, and no collusion. Court noted post-supply cancellation of supplier GSTIN without collusion evidence does not automatically deny recipient ITC, especially where recipients cooperated and lacked antecedents. Offences being compoundable with five-year maximum, custodial interrogation was unnecessary at this stage. Anticipatory bail granted on conditions. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Highlights ITC defence themes when supplier compliance fails after transaction. Editorial summary. This editorial note is for Chartered Universe professional research and is not legal advice.
In favour of the revenue
Kumar Manish (Corpus) v. Union of India
Kumar Manish filed habeas corpus (Allahabad High Court, HCWP 913 of 2026, 5 August 2026, Siddharth and Vinai Kumar Dwivedi, JJ.) challenging detention following arrest in a CGST input tax credit fraud investigation under Sections 69 and 132. Petitioner emphasized that maximum punishment may extend only up to five years, suggesting arrest should be rare. Respondents demonstrated credible material and recorded reasons per statutory requirements showing arrest necessary to secure effective investigation and prevent continuation of offences or tampering with evidence. The court distinguished bail-stage assessments from habeas scrutiny of initial arrest validity, upholding custody where reasons were contemporaneously documented. Writ dismissed; detention affirmed. Outcome: in favour of the revenue. Reinforces that five-year cap under Section 132 does not automatically bar arrest when Section 69 conditions are met. Informational summary.
In favour of the assessee
Sandeep Kumar Goel v. Union of India
Sandeep Kumar Goel, designated partner of an LLP (Telangana High Court, Criminal Petition 9264 of 2026, 16 July 2026, N. Tukaramji, J.), sought anticipatory bail when DG GST authorities alleged fraudulent ITC availed through fake suppliers and sought arrest for custodial interrogation under Sections 69 and 132 CGST (BNSS Section 482). Department already possessed books, returns and electronic records; petitioner cooperated with summons and showed no credible flight risk. Court found no justification for preventive custody solely to repeat questioning available through bail supervision. Anticipatory bail granted with stringent conditions including appearance and non-tampering undertakings. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Useful for LLPs where partners face parallel liability allegations but investigation materials are largely in department custody. Not legal advice.