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 following substantive reliefs:-

(i) Issue a writ, challenging the proceedings initiated 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); &

(ii) Issue a writ quashing of the Show Cause Notice No. 294/2024-25 dated 02.08.2024 (Annexure P-1) issued by Respondent No.5, 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, 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.

iii. Intelligence based enforcement action can be initiated by 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 intelligence-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 “proceedings” within the meaning of Section 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 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” even if the tax liability, deficiency, or obligation is same or similar, and the bar under Section 6(2)(b) would not be attracted.

x. The twofold test for determining whether a subject matter is “same” entails, first, determining if an authority has already proceeded on an identical liability of tax or alleged offence by the assessee on the same facts, and secondly, if the demand or relief sought is identical.

97. We issue the following guidelines to be followed in cases where, after the commencement of an inquiry or investigation by one authority, another inquiry or investigation on the same subject matter is initiated by a different authority.

a. Where a summons or a show cause notice i