TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
01 Sep 2026 
A client forwarded me a summons last month with a one-line message: they can't do this, we're with the Centre.
His registration sits with the Central jurisdiction. The summons came from the State GST enforcement wing. He wanted to file a writ that week.
I understand the instinct. Most businesses think of their jurisdiction the way they think of their bank branch. One department, one file, one point of contact.
That's not how Section 6 of the CGST Act works, and on 14 August 2025 the Supreme Court said so in terms that leave very little room to argue.
Here's what the judgment actually says, and what it changes about how you respond the next time a summons arrives from a department you weren't expecting.
Who handles your file, and who can investigate you
When GST rolled out, the GST Council divided the taxpayer base between the Centre and the States. Circular No. 01/2017 set the split: 90% of taxpayers below Rs. 1.5 crore turnover to the States, the rest divided evenly above that threshold.
That division decides who handles your routine work. Scrutiny of returns, audit, refunds, registration amendments. One interface, so you're not filing the same reconciliation twice.
Section 6(1) does something different. It makes every officer appointed under the State GST Act a proper officer for the purposes of the CGST Act, and the reverse. The cross-empowerment is statutory and it's automatic. No notification, no case-by-case transfer.
So the officer who never handles your file still holds the power to investigate you.
The CBIC letter dated 5 October 2018 (D.O.F. No. CBEC/20/43/01/2017-GST(Pt.)) draws the practical line. Intelligence-based enforcement action can be initiated by either administration, whatever the administrative allocation says. And the authority that starts it completes it: investigation, show cause notice, adjudication, recovery, appeal.
Two different tracks, then. Routine compliance stays with your assigned department. Enforcement based on intelligence can come from either side.
What happened in Armour Security
The facts are ordinary, which is why the judgment matters.
On 18 November 2024, the State GST authority issued a show cause notice under Section 73 for April 2020 to March 2021, demanding Rs. 1,24,92,162. The allegations were short payment of tax and excess input tax credit.
On 16 January 2025, the Central authority searched the company's premises under Section 67(2) and summoned four directors. A further summons on 23 January 2025 asked for documents. The Central inquiry concerned ITC claimed against suppliers whose registrations had been cancelled.
On 24 January 2025, the company told the Central officers about the State's pending notice and said the two overlapped.
The company's position was Section 6(2)(b): where a proper officer under the State Act has initiated any proceedings on a subject matter, no proceedings shall be initiated by the Central officer on the same subject matter. State GST got there first. Central GST had to stand down.
The Delhi High Court didn't accept it. Neither did the Supreme Court.
Summons are not "initiation of proceedings"
The whole case turned on when proceedings begin.
The Court held that "initiation of any proceedings" in Section 6(2)(b) means the issue of a show cause notice, the point at which quasi-judicial adjudication starts. A show cause notice is the mandatory precondition for raising any demand. It fixes the allegation, the period and the amount.
A summons does none of that. It's an inquiry step, taken to gather material, and it may end with the officer finding nothing to allege at all.
The Court put it plainly at paragraph 58: "the mere issuance of a summons cannot be equated with proceedings barred under the Act."
Search under Section 67 falls on the same side of the line, as does seizure. All investigative. None of them close the door on the other administration.
So the sequence in Armour Security was permissible. State GST had issued its notice. Central GST was still investigating. Section 6(2)(b) hadn't been triggered yet, because Central GST hadn't issued a notice of its own.
The bar is real, and it bites hard when it applies. It just applies at the show cause notice stage.
"Same subject matter" has a twin test
Even at the notice stage, the bar isn't automatic. The Court set two conditions, and both have to be met.
First, an identical tax liability or alleged offence arising on the same facts. Second, an identical demand or relief sought.
Distinct infractions don't qualify merely because they produce a similar tax effect. Two notices can both concern input tax credit for the same financial year and still be about different things: one about credit taken on a cancelled supplier's invoices, another about credit reversed short under Rule 42.
The Court also rejected the wider reading, that "subject matter" covers every topic an officer touches during inquiry. Subject matter crystallises when a show cause notice spells out the allegation, the period and the proposed demand. Before that, there's nothing fixed to compare.
This is the part that cuts against most taxpayers who raise the objection. "They're both looking at my ITC" is not the test.
The 9 steps the Court laid down
Paragraph 97 of the judgment sets out a procedure for exactly this situation. It reads as a compliance protocol, and it's the most usable part of the ruling.
1. Comply with the summons or notice. Its issue doesn't mean proceedings have begun, so there's nothing to resist yet.
2. If you believe a second authority is inquiring into the same matter, tell that authority in writing, and do it as soon as you know.
3. The two departments must then communicate with each other to check whether the overlap is real.
4. If the matters are distinct, the authority must tell you so in writing, specifying how they differ.
5. Either authority may keep investigating until it becomes clear both are chasing the same liability.
6. Where a duplicate show cause notice has been issued on the same subject matter, it will be quashed.
7. Where the overlap is confirmed, the departments decide between themselves which one continues, and the other hands over its material.
8. If they can't agree, the authority that started first continues. A court can order a transfer.
9. You can move a writ petition under Article 226 if the authorities ignore this.
Point 4 is worth using. A written demand that the department explain how its inquiry differs from the one already running puts something on record, and it's the document you'll rely on later if a second notice does land.
The summons you can't argue with at all
There's a second scenario that comes up more often than the cross-empowerment fight, and it has no defence.
Your customer or your vendor is under investigation, possibly in another State, by an authority you've never dealt with. Your invoices appear in their supply chain. You get a summons.
Section 70 lets a proper officer summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary, either to give evidence or to produce documents. The Court confirmed this at paragraph 56: the power reaches third parties and witnesses, not just the taxpayer under inquiry.
The test is relevance to that officer's inquiry. Where you're registered has nothing to do with it.
You comply. Then, separately, you find out why your name came up, because a supplier under investigation for fake invoicing is a problem sitting on your own ITC whether or not you're summoned again.
What restraint the department is under
The Court didn't hand the department a blank cheque.
It directed that CBIC's Instruction No. 03/2022-23 [GST-Inv] dated 17 August 2022 be followed "in both letter and spirit." That instruction says summons shouldn't be issued in routine matters, or to call for statutory records already available on the GST portal. A Superintendent needs prior written permission from an officer not below the rank of Deputy or Assistant Commissioner. Senior management, the CMD, MD or CFO, shouldn't be summoned in the first instance unless there's material indicating their involvement in the decision that led to revenue loss.
At paragraph 58 the Court added its own line: summons "ought to be issued after much thought and consideration as to the exact information required."
A summons demanding your GSTR-1, GSTR-3B and GSTR-2B for 3 years is a summons the department could have satisfied from its own systems. Saying so politely in your reply, with the instruction cited, is legitimate and sometimes effective.
What to do when the summons lands
Appear, or have an authorised representative appear on the date fixed. Non-appearance carries a penalty of up to Rs. 25,000 under Section 122(3)(d), and it hands the officer a reason to escalate.
Read the summons for what it actually asks. Officers often ask broadly and accept a focused, well-indexed response.
Answer carefully. Section 70(2) deems the inquiry a judicial proceeding, and a statement recorded there follows you into every later stage of the matter.
Pull your own file before you go. If you already have a show cause notice from another authority, know its date, period, allegation and amount, because that's the comparison the twin test runs.
Write to the second authority if you see genuine overlap, in the terms paragraph 97 contemplates, and keep the acknowledgement.
Then watch for the show cause notice. That's the moment Section 6(2)(b) becomes available, and the moment a writ petition has something to bite on.
Refusing to appear isn't a strategy. It converts an inquiry you might have closed into a penalty proceeding and a search authorisation.
If a summons is already on your desk
Check three dates before you decide anything: the date of the summons, the date of any show cause notice you've already received, and the tax period each one covers.
If the periods and the allegations line up, you have something to put in writing. If they don't, the objection will cost you goodwill and buy you nothing.
We advise businesses on responses to GST summons and searches, and on parallel proceedings between Central and State authorities. If you've received a summons and want a view on whether Section 6(2)(b) is available to you, write to us at [email protected].