Parallel GST adjudication by Central and State barred by s.6(2)(b); adjudication stayed, petitioner respond to Central SCN by 31.01.2026

The dominant issue is whether parallel adjudicatory proceedings by Central and State GST authorities are barred under Section 6(2)(b) CGST. Relying on the Apex Court in Armour Security, the HC holds that "initiation of proceedings" is temporal and once one authority initiates first, subsequent parallel adjudication by the other on the same cause of action is prohibited; investigative steps by either authority remain permissible provided they do not result in concurrent adjudication. Consequence: further adjudication is stayed consistent with Armour Security; petitioner must appear before the Central authority and file its response to the SCN by 31.01.2026; petition disposed.

---

---

Issues: Whether issuance of parallel adjudicatory proceedings by Central and State GST authorities in respect of the same subject matter is barred by Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act and, if so, what directions should follow in light of the Supreme Court's guidelines in Armour Security (India) Ltd.

Analysis: The Court applied the conclusions and guidelines recorded in paragraphs 96 and 97 of the Apex Court's decision in Armour Security (India) Ltd., which clarify that clause (b) of Section 6(2) bars initiation of parallel adjudicatory proceedings on the same subject matter, that a show cause notice constitutes formal initiation of proceedings whereas summons and investigative steps do not necessarily do so, and that authorities must communicate and coordinate to avoid duplication. The petitioner had challenged multiple DRC-01 summaries, summons and an adjudicatory order, alleging overlapping proceedings; the authorities represented that they would comply with the statutory mandate and the Armour guidelines. The Court found no need for further adjudication on merits but issued directions consistent with Armour Security to require petitioner to respond and to mandate inter-authority communication, coordination and avoidance of multiple adjudications.

Conclusion: The petition is disposed directing (i) the petitioner to file responses to the show cause notice and comply with summons by set date, (ii) the petitioner to inform authorities where overlap exists, (iii) the State and Central authorities to verify claims of overlap and coordinate which authority will proceed, (iv) that no parallel adjudicatory proceedings shall continue on the same subject matter in accordance with Armour Security, and (v) that adjudicatory authorities shall thereafter proceed according to law with opportunity of hearing. The Court did not adjudicate merits of the show cause notice or the challenged order and left parties free to pursue available legal remedies.

Ratio Decidendi: Clause (b) of Section 6(2) of the CGST Act bars initiation of parallel adjudicatory proceedings by Central and State tax authorities on the same subject matter; a show cause notice marks formal initiation, investigative acts do not necessarily do so, and authorities must communicate and coordinate to prevent duplicative adjudication.

---