Facts of the Case:

The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 challenging the initiation of proceedings by Central GST authorities on the ground that parallel proceedings had already been initiated by State GST authorities on the same subject matter. The dispute centered around Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, which bars initiation of parallel proceedings on the same issue by different tax authorities.

In the present case, the State GST authorities had issued summons in February 2024 and a DRC-01A intimation in June 2024, while the Central GST authorities, including the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), issued summons in April and May 2024 under Section 70. The petitioner contended that once proceedings had been initiated by the State authorities, the Central authorities were barred from initiating further action.

The Revenue authorities, however, submitted that they would abide by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in M/s Armour Security (India) Ltd v Commissioner CGST Delhi East and ensure no duplication of adjudicatory proceedings.

Issue:

Whether issuance of summons and initiation of inquiry by Central GST authorities amounts to impermissible parallel proceedings when State GST authorities have already initiated action on the same subject matter, in light of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.

Held That: 

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Armour Security, holding that no adjudication on merits was required at this stage. It reiterated that Section 6(2)(b) bars parallel adjudicatory proceedings on the same subject matter; however, investigative actions such as issuance of summons do not amount to “initiation of proceedings.”

The Court directed the petitioner to appear before the Central authorities and raise all objections, including the plea of parallel proceedings. It further directed the petitioner to inform both authorities about overlapping inquiries, following the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court.

The Court mandated coordination between Central and State GST authorities to verify whether the subject matter overlaps and to ensure that only one authority proceeds with adjudication. It clarified that both authorities are free to investigate initially, but once it is established that the subject matter is identical, only one authority should continue proceedings.

The Court emphasized adherence to the guidelines in Armour Security to avoid duplication, while ensuring that the petitioner is given an opportunity of hearing. No opinion was expressed on merits, and all rights were kept open.

Case Name: M/s. H.M. Steels Limited Versus The Joint Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise and Anr. dated 09,04.2026

To read the complete judgement 2026 Taxo.online 873