TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 165
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case the tax has not been actually paid to the government either in cash or through utilization of Input Tax 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 (Annexure P-9). iii. Writ of mandamus for giving the directions to the respondents for not passing the final order as identical interim order passed in CWP no. CWP no.17651 of 2025, CWP No. 20018 of 2025 and CWP No. 17742 of 2025." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, at present, the petitioner does not press Relief No. ii, reserving the right to agitate this issue in an appropriate petition, if so desired. 3. It has been further submitted that after issuance of intimation of liability notice DRC-01A dated 10.10.2023 (Annexure P-1) and Show Cause Notice DRC-01 dated 22.11.2023 (Annexure P-3) by respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner, State Taxes & Excise, District Sirmour at Nahan, the petitioner had submitted detailed replies along with docum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the CGST Act and the equivalent State enactments bars the "initiation of any proceedings" on the "same subject matter". ii. Any action arising from the audit of accounts or detailed scrutiny of returns must be initiated by the tax administration to which the taxpayer is assigned. iii. Intelligence based enforcement action can be initiated by any one of the Central or the State tax administrations despite the taxpayer 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 init....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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. 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 taxable person. e. The taxing authorities are well within their rights to conduct an inquiry or investigation until it is ascertained that both authorities are examining the identical liability to be discharged, the same contravention alleged, or the issuance of a show cause notice. Any show cause notice issued in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 Armour Security (supra). 11. The Apex Court, in Armour Security's case (supra), 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. 12. In in Armour Security's case (supra), particularly paras 96 and 97, it has been laid down t....