The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in a ruling, has cited that Goods and Services Tax (GST) authorities should coordinate with each other to prevent duplicate or parallel proceedings on the identical subject matter.
A writ petition under Article 226 has been submitted by H.M. Steels Limited, contesting the action of GST authorities, citing that proceedings were begun without jurisdiction and against section 6 of the CGST Act.
The problem has arisen because both State GST and Central GST authorities took action. Earlier, the State GST had issued summons in February 2024 and issued DRC-01A intimation, and subsequently, the Central GST issued summons in April and May 2024.
Also Read: HP HC Sets Aside GST Demand of INR 16.72 Lakh in Alleged Illegal ITC Case
The counsel of the applicant said that once the State GST authorities had initiated proceedings, the Central GST authorities were prohibited from taking any further action on the same matter u/s 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. They contended that such parallel actions are not permitted by law.
In response, the counsel for the authorities maintained that they would comply with the norms of Section 6(2)(b) and adhere to the legal principles established by the Supreme Court in the case of Armour Security. They also asserted that proper coordination would be ensured between the authorities to prevent any duplication of proceedings.
The Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma said that this issue is already settled by the Supreme Court. The Court mentioned that Section 6(2)(b) stops parallel adjudication, but summons or investigation steps do not indicate the start of proceedings.
The court mentioned that if one authority begins proceedings, another authority could not start parallel adjudication. It stated that an investigation, such as a summons, can continue if it is not a full adjudication.
Thereafter, the Court did not cancel the proceedings but disposed of the case with directions. The applicant was asked to appear before the Central authority and furnish all documents and claims. He was also asked to notify about overlapping proceedings.
Important: How GST Software Handles Tax Notices & Hearings Easily U/S 73
The court asked both authorities to talk to each other and coordinate so that no duplicate proceedings take place. It mentions that the court has not decided the case on the merits and all issues are still open.
| Case Title | M/s H.M. Steels Limited Vs. Joint Commissioner |
| Citation | CWP No. 6800 of 2024 |
| For the Petitioner | Mr Jyotirmay Bhatta |
| For the Respondents | Mr Sushant Keprate, Mr Vijay Kumar Arora, Mr Hitansh Raj, Mr Gaurav Kumar |
| Himachal Pradesh High Court | Read Order |
