CGST And SGST Needs Coordination: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reiterates Bar on Parallel Proceedings

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has reiterated that parallel adjudicatory proceedings by Central and State tax authorities on the same subject matter are impermissible under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma, observed that the issue is no longer res integra in light of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in M/s Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, which clarified the scope and application of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017. The decision came in a writ petition filed by M/s H.M. Steels Limited challenged the initiation of proceedings by Central GST authorities on the ground that State GST authorities had already commenced action on the same issue. The core legal issue before the Court revolved around whether summons issued by Central authorities under Section 70 of the CGST Act could continue when State authorities had already initiated proceedings relating to the same subject matter. The petitioner argued that such parallel action was barred by law and contrary to the statutory scheme governing jurisdiction between Central and State tax administrations. Relying on the Apex Court’s authoritative interpretation, the High Court emphasized that the bar under Section 6(2)(b) applies to the “initiation of proceedings” on the same subject matter. It clarified that “initiation” refers specifically to the commencement of adjudicatory proceedings through issuance of a show cause notice, and not merely to investigative steps such as summons, search, or seizure. The Court further underscored that while intelligence-based investigations may be initiated by either authority, parallel adjudicatory proceedings for the same tax liability or contravention are strictly prohibited. Where overlapping issues arise, authorities must coordinate and determine which one will proceed with the matter to its logical conclusion. Applying these principles to the present case, the Court noted that both Central and State authorities had issued summons and communications at different points in time. However, instead of adjudicating the dispute on merits, the Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the petition by issuing directions aligned with the Supreme Court’s guidelines. The High Court directed the petitioner to appear before the Central authority and raise all objections, including the plea of overlapping jurisdiction, along with relevant documents. It also directed the petitioner to inform one authority about proceedings initiated by the other, in accordance with the procedural framework laid down by the Supreme Court. Importantly, the Court instructed both Central and State GST authorities to communicate with each other and verify whether the subject matter overlaps. If duplication is found, they must coordinate and ensure that only one authority continues with adjudicatory proceedings, thereby preventing multiplicity of actions against the taxpayer. The Court also clarified that the taxpayer is obligated to cooperate with the investigation, respond to summons, and assist authorities during the inquiry stage. At the same time, it preserved the right of the assessee to seek judicial intervention if authorities fail to adhere to the prescribed guidelines. The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations or the validity of the summons and notices issued, leaving all questions open for determination by the competent authority in accordance with law. Case Details Case Title: M/s H.M. Steels Limited Versus The Joint Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise and Anr Citation: JURISHOUR-739-HC-2026(HP) Case No.: CWP No. 6800 of 2024 Date: 09.04.2026 Counsel For Petitioner: Jyotirmay Bhatta, Advocate Counsel For Respondent: Sushant Keprate, Additional Advocate General Click Here To Read Order Read More: Jharkhand High Court Slams State Building Construction Corp. for “Dishonest” Review Plea to Evade Settlement, Imposes Rs. 50K Personal Costs

CGST And SGST Needs Coordination: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reiterates Bar on Parallel Proceedings

Membership Required

Latest articles

Services Used for Setting Up Factory Continue to Qualify as ‘Input Services’: CESTAT

Customs Can’t Enhance Import Value Solely on NIDB Data Without Proof of Comparable Imports: CESTAT

Bona Fide Mistakes Shouldn’t Defeat Substantive Tax Rights: Karnataka High Court Allows Correction of GST DRC-03 Filing Error

Procedural Delay Should Not Defeat Scheme Benefits: CESTAT Directs Manual Processing of SVLDRS Discharge Certificate

More like this

Services Used for Setting Up Factory Continue to Qualify as ‘Input Services’: CESTAT

Customs Can’t Enhance Import Value Solely on NIDB Data Without Proof of Comparable Imports: CESTAT

Bona Fide Mistakes Shouldn’t Defeat Substantive Tax Rights: Karnataka High Court Allows Correction of GST DRC-03 Filing Error

About us

Company

Categories