AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 786
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., invoking provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has filed the present Writ Petition, praying for the substantive reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ, challenging the proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 4 being without jurisdiction and contrary to Section 6 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('CGST Act') and Himachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (HPGST, Act)" 2. Main issue involved in present Writ Petition is related to prohibition contained in Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("CGST Act"), against initiation of parallel proceedings on the same subject-matter, despite an earlier initiation of proceedings by another jurisdictional authority. 3. The aforesaid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itiation of any proceedings" occurring in Section 6(2)(b) refers to the formal commencement of adjudicatory proceedings by way of issuance of a show cause notice, and does not encompass the issuance of summons, or the conduct of any search, or seizure etc. vii. The expression "subject matter" refers to any tax liability, deficiency, or obligation arising from any particular contravention which the Department seeks to assess or recover. viii. Where any two proceedings initiated by the Department seek to assess or recover an identical or a partial overlap in the tax liability, deficiency or obligation arising from any particular contravention, the bar of Section 6(2)(b) would be immediately attracted. ix. Where the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ipt of such intimation from the assessee, the respective tax authorities shall communicate with each other to verify the veracity of the assessee's claim. We say, so as this course of action would obviate needless duplication of proceedings and ensure optimal utilization of the Department's time, effort, and resources, bearing in mind that action initiated by one authority enures to benefit of all. d. If the claim of the taxable person regarding the overlap of inquiries is found untenable, and the investigations of the two authorities pertain to different "subject matters", an intimation to this effect, along with the reasons and a specification of the distinct subject matters, shall be immediately conveyed in writing to the taxabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion, and the courts in such a case would be competent to pass an order for transferring the inquiry or investigation to that authority. h. If it is found that the authorities are not complying with these aforementioned guidelines, it shall be open to the taxable person to file a writ petition before the concerned High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. i. At the same time, taxable persons shall ensure complete cooperation with the authorities. It is incumbent upon them to appear in response to a summons and/or reply to a notice." 4. The petitioner has challenged the action of Central GST authorities in issuing summons under Section 70 of CGST Act, dated 23.04.2024, 11.05.2024 and 05.04.2024 on the gr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Judgment. 7. The Apex Court, in Armour Security case, has held that once one authority-Central or State-has initiated proceedings first in point of time, any subsequent parallel adjudicatory proceedings on the same cause of action by the other authority are barred under Section 6(2)(b). The Apex Court has emphasized the need to avoid overlapping proceedings and multiplicity, while at the same time clarifying that legitimate investigative steps by either authority may continue so long as they do not result in parallel adjudication. 8. In Armour Security case, referred supra, particularly paras 96 and 97, it has been laid down that once one authority (Central or State) has initiated proceedings first in point of time, the other authori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pra). 12. Accordingly, petition is disposed of in the following terms: (I) Petitioner is directed to appear before the Central Authority and raise the issues and contentions along with the relevant documents in terms of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Armour case on or before 15.05.2026. (II) With respect to summons and intimations i.e DRC-01(A) under Rule 142 (1A) of the Act, the petitioner is directed to comply with the summons and raise the contentions available with him including informing the State Authorities regarding issuance of Show Cause Notice in terms of para 97(a) & (b) of the Armour judgment (supra). The petitioner shall respond to all lawful requisitions and assist in the inquiry/investigation as....