IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

Decided on: January 07, 2026

M/s. Saraswati Spinning and Weaving Mills

…..Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. & others ….Respondents

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Stingh Thakur, Judge.

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner : Mr. J.S. Bedi, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Sushant Keprate, Additional Advocate

General for respondents No.1 to 3-State.

Mr. Vijay K. Arora, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Hitansh Raj, Advocate for respondent No.4.

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 substantive reliefs:

i) For issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the DRC-01

issued by respondent No.2 & 3 for the period of 2019-20 and

2020-21;

(ii) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing

respondents not to proceed further in pursuance to DRC-01 (Annexure P-5 & P-6) for the period of 2019-20 and 2020- 21 issued by Respondent No.2 & 3 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 during the pendency of this writ petition;

(iii) For issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated

05.02.2025 issued by respondent No.4 (Annexure P-7) as

…2…

the same was passed in consolidation for the period of 2017- 18 to 2022-23 beside this petitioner has availed the input tax credit after complying all the provisions of the Act;

(iv) It is further prayed that to avoid fait accompli, pending disposal of present petition, the respondent may be directed not to take coercive steps against the petitioner firm or the similar relief may please be granted.”

2. Main issue involved in present Wr it 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 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., AIR 2025 SC 3854, which lays down binding directions regarding the scope of ‘initiation of proceedings’, ‘subject-matter’, and the ‘inter-relationship 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.

…3…

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 initiated intelligenc e-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 “proceedtings” within the meaning of Section

6(2)(b) of the CrGST 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.

hvii. The expression “subject matter” refers to any tax liability, deficiency, or obligation arising from any g particular contravention which the Department seeks to assess or recover.

H viii. Where any two proceedings initi