WHEN TWO AUTHORITIES PURSUE ONE LIABILITY - THE GST DOCTRINE AGAINST PARALLEL PROCEEDINGS

The Growing Anxiety of Multiple GST Proceedings

Few situations create greater uncertainty for a taxpayer than receiving notices from multiple GST authorities for substantially the same issue. What begins as an inquiry by one authority is often followed by summons, investigations, and adjudicatory proceedings by another, leaving the taxpayer trapped between overlapping jurisdictions within a tax system that was constitutionally designed on the principle of cooperative federalism.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in M/s. Radha Krishan Industries Versus Union of India & Ors. - 2026 (5) TMI 627 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT, has reiterated this issue. Although the decision is brief in procedural terms, it is highly significant because it enforces and applies the principles recently laid down by the Supreme Court in the influential 66-page judgment of M/s ARMOUR SECURITY (INDIA) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI EAST COMMISSIONERATE & ANR. - 2025 (8) TMI 991 - Supreme Court.

The controversy at Radha Krishan Industries arose when the assessee challenged a Show Cause Notice issued by the Central GST authorities under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act, on the ground that the State GST authorities had already initiated an inquiry and issued a summons on the same subject matter earlier. The assessee, therefore, invoked Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, which prohibits parallel adjudicatory proceedings on substantially the same subject matter once one authority has initiated proceedings.

The Fine but Crucial Distinction Between 'Inquiry' and 'Proceedings'

The Supreme Court's judgment in Armour Security, cited by the Himachal Pradesh High Court, emphasises the critical distinction between an 'inquiry' and the 'initiation of proceedings.' This distinction has significant practical value because GST authorities nationwide often issue summons under Section 70, conduct searches under Section 67, and collect documents even before fully establishing the specific allegations against the taxpayer. The Court explained that actions such as summons, searches, seizures, inspections, and the collection of evidence are essentially investigative exercises intended to gather information and verify facts.

The Supreme Court clarified that investigative measures such as summons, searches, seizures, inspections, and evidence collection are merely fact-finding exercises and do not by themselves amount to 'initiation of proceedings' under Section 6(2)(b). According to the Court, formal proceedings truly commence only upon issuance of a Show Cause Notice, since it is the SCN that crystallises the allegations, identifies the proposed liability, and activates the adjudicatory process under GST law. The Court highlighted that the main aim of the statutory restriction in Section 6(2)(b) is to prevent overlapping adjudications and conflicting liability decisions, not to obstruct legitimate investigations or evidence gathering by tax authorities.

This distinction is practically important because it prevents Section 6(2)(b) from being invoked prematurely, simply because a summons is issued or an inquiry begins. It also safeguards taxpayers from facing multiple legal proceedings once the dispute reaches a formal liability assessment. Essentially, the Supreme Court sought to balance strong tax enforcement with avoiding duplicate adjudications under the GST system.

The Real Meaning of 'Same Subject Matter'

The Supreme Court's decision in M/s ARMOUR SECURITY (INDIA) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI EAST COMMISSIONERATE & ANR. - 2025 (8) TMI 991 - Supreme Court. is notable for its detailed interpretation of the term 'same subject matter' under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. Before this ruling, there was considerable confusion about whether overlapping tax periods, shared transactions, similar allegations, or concurrent investigations by different authorities automatically triggered the bar on parallel proceedings. In paragraphs 82 and 86 to 88, the Court sought to clarify this issue by emphasising that 'subject matter' should not be interpreted vaguely or too broadly. It clarified that the core of the proceedings is defined by the content of the Show Cause Notice, the key document that outlines the alleged violation, estimates the proposed liability, and defines the scope of the case. In effect, the Supreme Court treated the Show Cause Notice as the jurisdictional compass of GST adjudication. The Court also noted that an adjudicating authority generally cannot go beyond the allegations specified in the SCN, especially in light of Section 75(7) of the CGST Act. Accordingly, the Court held that 'subject matter' refers not only to the taxpayer's identity or the tax period, but specifically to the liability and contravention under examination and adjudication.

The judgment further evolved a two-part test to determine whether proceedings involve the 'same subject matter.' First, it assesses whether both authorities are acting against essentially the same alleged violation based on the same facts. Second, it considers whether both proceedings aim to evaluate or recover the same or very similar tax liability, deficiency, or obligation. The Court explained that mere overlaps in inquiry, a shared taxpayer, or similar issues do not automatically trigger Section 6(2)(b)unless the underlying liability and alleged infraction are substantially the same. The Court also noted that when there is a complete or significant overlap between the liability sought and the alleged violation, parallel proceedings would be inappropriate. This interpretation is important because it helps prevent arbitrary duplication and overly rigid enforcement of Section 6(2)(b).

Another important aspect of the judgment is the Supreme Court's clarification that cases involving 'distinct infractions' are not automatically treated as the 'same subject matter' merely because the taxpayer is the same or the financial implications appear similar. This has significant practical relevance for current GST investigations, which often involve multiple allegations such as fake ITC, suppression of turnover, circular trading, undervaluation, or wrongful refunds. The Court sought to balance two concerns - avoiding harassment through overlapping proceedings and allowing tax authorities to investigate genuinely distinct violations. This legal framework notably influenced the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Radha Krishan Industries, where the Court emphasised coordination between Central and State authorities and the need to verify factual overlap before proceeding. Overall, the judgment reinforces the doctrine that Section 6(2)(b) is more than a procedural safeguard; it is a key statutory tool designed to ensure administrative discipline and fairness in the GST system.

Cooperative Federalism Cannot Become Competitive Federalism

The interpretational principles evolved in Armour Security were not merely technical exercises in statutory construction; they were deeply connected with the constitutional architecture of GST administration itself. Both Armour Security and Radha Krishan Industries emphasise 'cooperative federalism' as the core framework for GST administration. The GST system was constitutionally designed as a unified tax structure that requires ongoing collaboration between Central and State authorities. Section 6 of the CGST Act exemplifies this principle by recognising mutual empowerment and administrative support between these two bodies.

In practice, this cooperative framework often evolved into what is known as 'competitive federalism,' with multiple authorities concurrently exercising jurisdiction over the same taxpayer. This overlap heightened compliance burdens and posed risks of inconsistent decisions, duplicated evidence, conflicting rulings, and unnecessary harassment. To address this, the Supreme Court stressed the importance of communication and coordination between authorities when overlaps occur, rather than acting separately in parallel.

The High Court demonstrated this approach in Radha Krishan Industries by not completely quashing the Show Cause Notice. Instead, it encouraged the assessee to cooperate with authorities and requested both State and Central agencies to verify the facts. This prevents the taxpayer from having to deal with multiple proceedings on the same issue. The judgment emphasises a judicial preference for institutional coordination and administrative discipline rather than premature judicial intervention during investigations.

Para 97 - The Supreme Court's Operational Roadmap for GST Authorities

A key feature of Armour Security is that the Supreme Court didn't limit itself to interpreting Section 6(2)(b). Recognising the ongoing practical challenges faced by taxpayers and tax authorities, the Court detailed, in Paragraph 97, an operational framework to address overlapping inquiries and investigations. These guidelines are likely to be highly influential as they provide procedural clarity in an area that previously caused considerable confusion among different High Courts.

The guidelines attempt to balance procedural discipline with uninterrupted investigation. The Supreme Court explained that taxpayers are initially required to respond to summons and notices, as issuing a summons does not, in itself, mean that separate proceedings are underway. However, if a taxpayer learns that another authority is already examining the same issue, they must notify that authority in writing. Thereafter, the authorities should communicate, check for overlap, and determine which will proceed. The Court also noted that if authorities do not coordinate properly, taxpayers can still seek remedies under Article 226 of the Constitution.

In Radha Krishan Industries, the Himachal Pradesh High Court substantially applied these principles. The Court directed the assessee to file replies and raise all objections before the authorities, and simultaneously directed both Central and State authorities to coordinate to ensure that the assessee is not exposed to multiple adjudicatory proceedings on the identical controversy. The judgment therefore demonstrates that the Supreme Court's framework in Armour Security is already beginning to shape day-to-day GST administration and procedural discipline across the country.

Practical Implications of the Judgment

The judgment is of considerable importance for taxpayers facing simultaneous inquiries from the DGGI, CGST Commissionerates, and State GST authorities. It strengthens the argument that while coordinated investigation may continue, overlapping adjudicatory proceedings relating to substantially identical liabilities may be challenged under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.

A Judgment That Strengthens Procedural Fairness Under GST

The significance of Radha Krishan Industries extends beyond the High Court's directives. It reaffirms a developing legal principle under GST: taxpayers should not be subjected to multiple adjudicatory proceedings merely because the GST framework permits overlapping administrative authorities. This ruling enhances procedural fairness and preserves the lawful investigative powers of tax authorities. In many ways, Para 97 transforms Section 6(2)(b) from a passive statutory restriction into an active administrative coordination mechanism.

Both Armour Security and Radha Krishan Industries exemplify a balanced judicial approach. The Supreme Court and the Himachal Pradesh High Court did not seek to undermine intelligence-led investigations or the enforcement powers under the GST law. Instead, they sought to promote a coordinated, disciplined, and non-overlapping use of these powers. This distinction is crucial, as modern tax administration increasingly relies on data analytics, intelligence sharing, inter-state cooperation, and concurrent investigations.

As GST jurisprudence continues to evolve, Armour Security and Radha Krishan Industries may emerge as foundational precedents governing jurisdictional discipline under the GST framework. Together, these judgments reaffirm a vital principle of modern tax administration - while multiple authorities may investigate the same taxpayer, the law does not permit the same liability and the same alleged contravention to be repeatedly adjudicated by different authorities merely because overlapping statutory powers exist. In a system founded upon cooperative federalism, administrative coordination cannot be allowed to dissolve into procedural duplication.

----

CA. Raj Jaggi and Adv. Kirti Jaggi, Assistant Professor, Asian Law College, Noida