(b) of the CGST Act bars only parallel assessment proceedings and does not prevent Central GST from issuing summons pursuant to a search.){kind=link}
Case Summary
Case Title: Armour Security India Limited v. Commissioner CGST Delhi East Commissionerate
Court: Delhi High Court
Petition No.: W.P.(C) 1082/2025 & CM Appl. 5339/2025 (Stay)
Date of Judgement: 07.02.2025
Category of Dispute: Jurisdiction under Section 6 CGST Act, Summons, Parallel Proceedings
Relevant Sections: Section 6(2)(b), Sections 73 & 74 of the CGST Act, 2017
Facts (Paras 1–5)
The petitioner, Armour Security India Ltd., challenged summons issued by Central GST authorities dated 16.01.2025 and 23.01.2025. It argued that since State GST authorities had already issued orders dated 16.01.2024 and 11.07.2024 under Section 73 and proceedings were pending pursuant to a Show Cause Notice dated 18.11.2024, the Central GST authorities were barred from initiating fresh proceedings under Section 6(2)(b). The petitioner also sought transfer of the case to State GST and release of seized electronic devices.
Questions (Paras 2–5)
The primary issue before the Court was whether Section 6(2)(b) prohibits Central GST authorities from issuing summons arising out of a search when State GST authorities have already initiated proceedings on the same subject matter.
Observations (Paras 6–13)
The Court clarified that Section 6(2)(b) prohibits parallel assessment proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 by different authorities but does not bar investigations or searches. A search and summons are merely precursors to possible proceedings and may bring to light new material not covered in earlier assessments.
The Court distinguished the Jharkhand High Court’s ruling in Vivek Narsaria v. State of Jharkhand (2024 SCC OnLine Jhar 50), where both authorities had simultaneously pursued reversal of ITC. In the present case, the summons followed a fresh search conducted by Central GST on 16.01.2025, after State GST had initiated its proceedings. Thus, the facts were materially different.
Judgement (Paras 14–16)
The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the summons were valid and not hit by Section 6(2)(b). However, it granted liberty to the petitioner to approach Central GST authorities to obtain a copy of seized electronic data to effectively respond to the investigation.
Table of Cases Referred
| Case | Court & Citation | Ratio / Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Vivek Narsaria v. State of Jharkhand | Jharkhand HC, 2024 SCC OnLine Jhar 50 | Held that parallel proceedings by State GST and CGST on ITC reversal are impermissible under Section 6(2)(b). Court directed CGST/DGGI to forward investigation to State GST. Distinguished in present case as summons arose post-search. |
Between Fine Lines
For taxpayers, this ruling clarifies that Section 6(2)(b) protects against double assessment by State and Central GST authorities but does not prevent Central GST from issuing summons after a search. Businesses should be prepared to comply with investigations even if State GST proceedings are pending, while safeguarding their right to access seized electronic data.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”