The Kerala High Court has held 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. has observed that the jurisdiction under GST is statutory and must be expressly conferred.
At the heart of the dispute was whether Intelligence Officers and Anti-Evasion authorities could independently initiate adjudication proceedings under Sections 73 or 74 of the GST Acts when the taxpayer was already subject to proceedings by jurisdictional officers.
The petitioners argued that such parallel actions created uncertainty, violated principles of natural justice, and contravened the statutory scheme governing allocation of powers. It was contended that while Intelligence Wings may investigate, adjudication must be undertaken only by duly assigned “proper officers.”
The Court examined the scheme of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and the Kerala State GST Act, particularly provisions relating to the appointment and empowerment of proper officers.
The Bench observed that Intelligence Officers are empowered to conduct inspection, search, and investigation. However, adjudication proceedings must be initiated only by officers properly assigned jurisdiction through statutory authorization. Parallel proceedings by multiple authorities over the same subject matter are legally impermissible.
The Court noted, would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and administrative inconsistency.
In several connected matters—including petitions filed by proprietors, companies, associations, and individuals—the Court quashed the impugned notices issued without proper jurisdiction.
The ruling clarified that any further action must be undertaken only by the competent jurisdictional officer in accordance with law.
Case Details
Case Title: Dhanlaxmi Bank Limited Versus State of Kerala
Case No.: WP(C) NO. 15618 OF 2025
Date: 16/02/2026
Counsel For Petitioner: Abraham Joseph Markos
Counsel For Respondent: Mohammed Rafiq
