2026 (5) TMI 1506

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Credit being violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g), 265 and 300A of the Constitution of India and also for the reason that by way of the Provisions of Section 16(2)(c), the petitioner is being asked to do an impossible task which is otherwise not possible in absence of any mechanism provided by the Government ii. For issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the DRC-01A and DRC-01 issued by the State Tax Authorities for the period of 2019-20 and 2020-21 as the same was issued in contradiction to the provisions of Act i.e. section 6(2)(b) of the Act as CST authorities have already assumed the jurisdiction. iii. For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent no. 3 not to proceed further in pursuance to DRC-01 (Annexure P-10 & P-11) for the period of 2019-20 and 2020-21 issued by Respondent no. 4 along with intimation of tax ascertained payable under section 74(5) in form DRC-01A (Annexure P-7 and 7-A) as the proceedings in question are illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Central GST Act / Himachal Pradesh GST Act and IGST Act 2017." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, at present, the petitioner does not press Rel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... documents to substantiate the claim of petitioner, the competent authority shall decide the same within a reasonable time. 7. Further case of the petitioner is that for the same Financial Years, CGST Authority, i.e. respondent No.6-Assistant Commissioner CGST, Division Parwanoo, issued show cause notice dated 09.01.2023 (Annexure P-3) and resultantly, for the same period, CGST Authorities have also initiated parallel proceedings on the subject matter in view of Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and such parallel proceedings are not maintainable. 8. The aforesaid issue is no-longer res-integra, but stands substantially resolved by the Apex Court in M/s Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East & Anr., reported in AIR 2025 SC 3854 & (2025) SCC Online 1700, which lays down binding directions regarding the scope of 'initiation of proceedings', 'subject-matter', and the 'interrelationship between Central and State GST authorities'. Relevant paragraphs No. 96 and 97, containing conclusions including guidelines, read as under:- "E. CONCLUSION 96. We summarize our final conclusion as under:- i. Clause (b)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the same subject matter is initiated by a different authority. a. Where a summons or a show cause notice is issued by either the Central or the State tax authority to an assessee, the assessee is, in the first instance, obliged to comply by appearing and furnishing the requisite response, as the case may be. We 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 the Department's time, effort, and resources, bearing in mind that action initiated by one authority enures to benefit of all. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eply to a notice." 9. The learned counsel representing the State and Central GST authorities submit that they shall abide by the statutory mandate under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act and the principles laid down in paras 96 and 97 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Armour Security (supra). It has been further submitted that appropriate coordination shall be maintained between the authorities to ensure that no parallel adjudicatory proceedings take place. 10. Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, Senior Advocate, under instructions, has referred judgments passed by various High Courts i.e. Agrawal Soya Extracts (P.) Ltd. V. Union of India, reported in (2025)179 Taxmannn.com 66 (Madhya Pradesh); Sensation Infracon (P.) Ltd. v. State of Telangana, reported in (2025) 177 Taxmann.com.627 (Telangana); 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 judgment passed in A....