TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 627
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ttan, Advocate General, with Ms. Sushant Keprate, Additional Advocate General & Ms. Swati Draik, Deputy Advocate General,. JUDGMENT PER VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, JUDGE (ORAL) Petitioner, invoking provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has filed the present Writ Petition, praying for the following 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); & (ii) Issue a writ quashing of the Show Cause Notice No. 294/2024-25 dated 02.08.2024 (Annexure P-1) issued by Respondent No.5, being ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ayer having been assigned to the other administration. iv. Parallel proceedings should not be initiated by other tax administration when one of the tax administrations has already initiated intelligence-based enforcement action. v. All actions that are initiated as a measure for probing an inquiry or gathering of evidence or information do not constitute "proceedings" within the meaning of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. vi. The expression "initiation 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e say, so because, mere issuance of a summons does not enable either the issuing authority or the recipient to ascertain that proceedings have been initiated. b. Where an assessee becomes aware that the matter being inquired into or investigated is already the subject of an inquiry or investigation by another authority, the assessee shall forthwith inform, in writing, the authority that has initiated the subsequent inquiry or investigation. c. Upon receipt 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation of proceedings, otherwise has no locus to claim which authority should proceed with the inquiry or investigation in a particular matter. g. However, where the authorities are unable to reach a decision as to which of them shall continue with the inquiry or investigation then in such circumstances, the authority that first initiated the inquiry or investigation shall be empowered to carry it to its logical conclusion, 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 concerned High Court under Article 226 of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....na); and Ravi Steel Industries v. Union of India, reported in (2025) 179 Taxmann.com 452 (Bombay), whereby directions were issued to the petitioner to present its case before the competent authorities by furnishing all the supportive documents related to summons and Show Cause Notice with a further directions to GST Authorities to decide the same in terms of para 96 and 97 of the Armour case 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 proc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... P-7) were issued by the Central Authority, being 'parallel proceedings' barred by Section 6(2)(b) of CGST Act. 11. Applying the conclusions and guidelines, contained in Armour Security case, to the facts of this case, we are of the considered opinion that no further adjudication is required, except issuing directions consistent with the law declared in Armour Security case (supra). 12. Accordingly, petition is disposed of in the following terms:- "(I) Petitioner is directed to appear before the Central Authority and file the response of Show Cause Notice, so issued, and raise the contentions along with relevant documents in terms of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Armour case on or before 01.06.2026. (II) W....