HC Rules Section 6(2)(b) GST Bar Inapplicable Without Prior State Proceedings

Case Details: Murliwala Pigment vs. Union of India [2026] 187 taxmann.com 385 (Rajasthan)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

Inderjeet Singh & Ashok Kumar Jain, JJ.
Jaswinder Singh Bedi & Rudraksh Sharma for the Petitioner.
Ms Mahi Yadav, AAG, Rohan Mittal, Sandeep Pathak, Kinshuk Jain & Arun Kumar for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner was subjected to a search under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act across five associated premises, resulting in the seizure of goods, the sealing of four premises, and the provisional attachment of its bank account via Form GST DRC-22. Although summons were issued and written replies were submitted, the petitioner failed to appear and instead filed a writ petition challenging the enforcement actions. The petitioner contended that the parallel proceedings were barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act and the Rajasthan GST Act, and further argued that the sealing of business premises was unauthorized under Section 67, while seeking the lifting of the provisional bank attachment. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the statutory bar against parallel proceedings under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act arises only when a proper officer under the State or Union Territory GST Act has already initiated proceedings on the exact same subject matter. The Court observed that since the record disclosed no prior proceedings by the State GST authorities regarding similar grounds or input tax credit claims, the statutory prohibition was entirely inapplicable. Regarding the sealing of premises and seizure of goods, it determined that Section 67(4) explicitly empowers authorized officers to seal premises, and because the petitioner failed to exhaust the statutory mechanisms for provisional release or de-sealing under Section 67(4) and Section 67(6) read with Rules 140 and 141 of the CGST Rules, a writ challenge was not maintainable. Furthermore, the Court upheld the provisional bank attachment under Section 83, clarifying that it was properly executed to safeguard revenue in accordance with the prescribed guidelines, and dismissed the writ petition.

List of Cases Reviewed

Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate [2025] 177 taxmann.com 478/111 GST 400/101 GSTL 289 (SC) /2025 INSC 982 (para 13)
Napin Impex (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of DGST, Delhi [2018] 98 taxmann.com 462/19 GSTL 578 (Delhi) (para 24) distinguished

List of Cases Referred to

Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate [2025] 177 taxmann.com 478/111 GST 400/101 GSTL 289 (SC) (para 3)
Ankush Jain v. Union of India [DB Civil Writ Petition No. 17040/2022, dated 21.12.2022] (para 5)
Napin Impex (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of DGST, Delhi [2018] 98 taxmann.com 462/19 GSTL 578 (Delhi) (para 14)
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kay Pan Fragrance (P.) Ltd. [2019] 112 taxmann.com 81/[2020] 77 GST 576/[2019] 31 GSTL 385 (SC) (para 15)
Kanak Timber House v. Asstt. Commissioner of Sales Tax [2024] 160 taxmann.com 394/103 GST 34/84 GSTL 4 (Calcutta) (para 16)
Genesis Enterprises v. Principal Commissioner CGST Delhi East [2025] 178 taxmann.com 538/102 GSTL 315 (Delhi) (para 17),
ITC Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [Civil Appeal No. 11798 of 2025, dated 12-9-2025] (para 17)
State of Maharashtra v. Greatship (India) Ltd. [2022] 142 taxmann.com 417 (SC) (para 21)
United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon [2010] 8 SCC 110 (para 21)
Tanushree Logistics (P.) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan [2022] 145 taxmann.com 523/[2023] 97 GST 500 (Rajasthan) (para 22)