IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Date of decision: 09.04.2026.

_____________________________________________________________________________ M/s H.M. Steels Limited ...Petitioner.

Versus f The Joint Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise and Anr. …Respondents. ____________________________________________________________________________

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? ¹ _____________________________________________________________________________

For the Petitioner. Mr. Jyotirmay Bhatta, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Respondents No. 1 and 2 stand deleted.

Mr. Sushant Keprate, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No. 3-State.

Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hitansh Raj and Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advocates, for respondent No. 4.

__________________________________________________________

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge Petitioner, invoking provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has filed the present Writ Petition, praying for the substantive reliefs:-

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

“(i) Issue a writ, challenging the proceedings initiatePd 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)”

2. Main issue involved in present Writ 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 whhich 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 initiaPted 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 adm inistrations has already initiated intelligence-based enforcement actiofn.

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

viii. Where any two proceedings initiated by the Department seek to assess or recover an identical or a partial overlap in the tax liability, deficiency or obligation arising from any particular contravention, the H bar of Section 6(2)(b) would be immediately attracted.

ix. Where the proceedings concern distinct infractions, the same would not constitute a “same subject matter” e