M/s Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate & Anr.

p. 1772

17.08.2022. In view of the facts of the present case in hand, we would like to inject thrust into the Guidelines dated 17.08.2022, and direct the concerned Departments to adhere to the said Guidelines, in both letter and spirit.

61. In the present case, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 18.11.2024 by the respondent no. 2 under Section 73 of the CGST Act, thereby initiating proceedings. The petitioner has impugned the summons dated 16.01.2025 and 23.01.2025 respectively issued by the respondent no. 1 for production of documents. At the summons stage, it cannot be predicated with certainty that the subject matter of the proceedings will be identical; the mere presence of an overlapping aspect under investigation does not ipso facto render the subject matter “same”.

62. The High Court correctly held that the term “any proceedings” does not encompass summons issued pursuant to a search or investigation, as at the stage of issuance of summons the Department is merely engaged in gathering information. We are in agreement with the finding that a case of search is clearly distinct and separate from proceedings initiated only after issuance of a show cause notice.

63. We may now proceed to elaborate on our understanding of “initiation of any proceedings” within the meaning of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s, 6th Edition, page 4415-4420, defines “proceedings” as under:- “It is not a technical expression with defined meaning attached to it but the one ambit of whose meaning will be governed by the statute. The word “proceedings” can be given a narrow or wide import depending upon the nature and scope of an enactment in which it is used and in the particular context of the language of the enactment in which it appears.” (Emphasis supplied)

64. We may quote an extract from the Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, page 1368, it stated as under:- “An act which is done by the authority or direction of the court, express or implied; an act necessary to be done in order to attain a given end; a prescribed mode of action for carrying into effect a legal right.”

p. 1773

M/s Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate & Anr.

65. A show cause notice is a document served on a noticee, requiring them to explain why a particular action should not be initiated against them. Under the GST regime, issuance of a show cause notice is a mandatory precondition for raising a demand. It forms the bedrock for proceedings related to the recovery of tax, interest, and penalty. The notice ensures adherence to the principles of natural justice by granting the assessee an opportunity to present their case before any adverse action is taken. In essence, it serves as both a procedural safeguard and a legal necessity, marking the commencement of quasi-judicial adjudication under the Act.

66. A show cause notice sets the law in motion concerning the liability under the statute, containing charges that a specific person is called upon to answer. In other words, it sets out the alleged violations of legal provisions and requires the assessee to explain why the duty should not be recovered from them. Thus, a show cause notice cannot be vague, nor can any allegations be made without evidence being commensurate with the gravity of the charges levelled against the noticee.

67. It sets forth the framework for the proceedings proposed to be undertaken and provides the noticee with an opportunity to submit their explanation before the adjudicating authority. It outlines the background for the initiation of such proceedings, whether arising from an audit of accounts by the internal audit wing, scrutiny of returns, or intelligence gathered by officers of the Audit and Intelligence Commissionerate. It is further mandated that the authority issuing the notice must meticulously set out all relevant legal provisions under which the alleged contraventions are framed. The materials obtained through summons and relied upon for issuing the show cause notice must be appended and disclosed to the assessee. In essence, a show cause notice enumerates the charges levelled against the notice.

68. An assessee may be held liable to pay tax along with interest pursuant to an audit, scrutiny, or investigation. This liability can be discharged either through self-assessment or by way of assessment conducted by the Department. The Act contemplates the issuance of a show cause notice under Sections 73, 74, and 76 respectively, wherein the assessee is afforded one or more opportunities to pay the demanded tax amount. Upon such payment, all proceedings in respect of the said notice stand concluded.

p. 1774

69. Once a show cause notice is issued under a specific provision and the reply submitted in response is duly considered by the adjudicating authority, the liability is then determined through the issuance of an order of adjudication, commonly referred to as an ‘Order-in-Original’.

Tax/Duty

Not Levied Short Levied Not Paid Short Paid Erroneously Input Tax Refunded Credit Wrongly availed/utilised

Department Assessee voluntarily contemplates action pays with interest and penalty, if applicable

Issue of Show Cause Notice No SCN (SCN)

70. The above flowchart, prepared and published by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India in Report No. 1 of 2021 (Indirect Taxes – Goods and Services Tax, Central Excise and Service Tax), illustrates that in cases involving determination of tax not levied, or short levied, or not paid, or short paid, or erroneously refunded, or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilized, the assessee can discharge the liability by voluntarily paying tax alongwith interest and, where applicable, penalty; failing which, the Department contemplates an action. At this stage, the Department initiates action aimed towards ascertaining the tax liability and issuing a show cause notice accordingly.

71. We are cognizant of Circular No. 31/05/2018 – GST dated 09.02.2018, issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs, Department of Revenue, which states that the officers of Audit Commissionerate and DGGI can issue show cause notices. Ergo, by virtue of being designated as proper officers, the officers of the DGGI are also empowered, in their capacity as Central Tax officers, to issue show cause notices. We may reproduce the relevant extract of the concerned Circular hereinbelow:

p. 1775

M/s Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate & Anr.

“6. The central tax officers of Audit Commissionerates and Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (hereinafter referred to as “DGGSTI”) shall exercise the powers only to issue show cause notices. A show cause notice issued by them shall be adjudicated by the competent central tax officer of the Executive Commissionerate in whose jurisdiction the noticee is registered. In case there are more than one noticees mentioned in the show cause notice having their principal places of business falling in multiple Commissionerates, the show cause notice shall be adjudicated by the competent central tax officer in whose jurisdiction, the principal place of business of the noticee from whom the highest demand of central tax and/or integrated tax (including cess) has been made falls.”

72. The statutory framework of the CGST Act does not admit of any interpretation of the phrase “initiation of proceedings” under Section 6(2)(b) other than one which ties it to the issuance of a show cause notice. An action qualifies as ‘proceedings’ only when it is undertaken with the object of attaining a determinate outcome. In the present context, the issuance of a show cause notice partakes the character of proceedings, as it is inherently required to culminate in a definitive determination; there must exist a point of finality or conclusion thereto.

73. Proceedings, by their very nature, cannot be said to be initiated in the absence of certainty, nor can they culminate without adherence to the principles of natural justice. A show cause notice marks the commencement of a process that culminates in an order passed by the adjudicating authority. The legislative intent to prevent the subjugation of a taxpayer to parallel proceedings and to avoid contradictory orders can only be realized only when the Department is clear about the subject matter it seeks to pursue, a certainty that arises only at the stage of issuance of the show cause notice.

74. In the facts of the present case, the mere issuance of summons does not imply that the Department has decided to proceed against the taxpayer for recovery of liability. Therefore, issuance of summons, by no stretch, can be considered as the initiation of proceedings, since at that stage, the Department still retains the discretion not to initiate any proceedings. A mere contemplation or possibility of

p. 1776

initiating action cannot be equated with “proceedings”, as doing so would undermine the framework of cross-empowerment under the Act. Even when a discovery is made during the search proceedings under Section 67 of the CGST Act, the Department is required to bring such proceedings to a definitive conclusion, either by issuing a show cause notice under Section 74 or by dropping the matter altogether.

i. Reading of Circular dated 05.10.2018

75. While dealing with the present matter, we came across judgments of various High Courts wherein various counsel relied on the Circular dated 05.10.2018 to do both challenge and defend actions taken by the Department. In the present matter, the learned Counsel for the petitioner by relying on the same Circular submitted that the respondent no. 1 could not have initiated proceedings on a subject matter on which the respondent no. 2 had already initiated proceedings. The Circular reads thus: “Dear Colleague, It has been brought to the notice of the Board that there is ambiguity regarding initiation of enforcement action by the Central tax officers in case of taxpayer assigned to the State tax authority and vice versa.

2. In this regard, GST Council in its 9th meeting held on 16.01.2017 had discussed and made recommendations regarding administrative division of taxpayers and concomitant issues. The recommendation in relation to cross-empowerment of both tax authorities for enforcement of intelligence based action is recorded at para 28 of Agenda note no. 3 in the minutes of the meeting which reads as follows:- “viii. Both the Central and State tax administrations shall have the power to take intelligence-based enforcement action in respect of the entire value chain”

3. It is accordingly clarified that the officers of both Central tax and State tax are authorized to initiate intelligence based enforcement action on the entire taxpayer’s base irrespective of the administrative assignment of the

p. 1777

M/s Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate & Anr.

taxpayer to any authority. The authority which initiates such action is empowered to complete the entire process of investigation, issuance of SCN, adjudication, recovery, filing of appeal etc. arising out of such action.

4. In other words, if an officer of the Central tax authority initiates intelligence based enforcement action against a taxpayer administratively assigned to State tax authority, the officers of Central tax authority would not transfer the said case to its State tax counterpart and would themselves take the case. to its logical conclusions.

5. Similar position would remain in case of intelligence based enforcement action initiated by officers of State tax authorities against a taxpayer administratively assigned to the Central tax authority.

6. It is also informed that GSTN is already making changes in the IT system in this regard.”

76. The said Circular is premised on the administrative division of the taxpayer base, as explained in Circular No. 01/2017 dated 20.09.2017. We would like to underscore that this division of the taxpayer base does not operate as a bar to the initiation of enforcement action by Central Tax officers against a taxpayer assigned to the State Tax authority, and vice versa.

77. Enforcement action undertaken by any Department is ordinarily based on intelligence as elucidated by us in paragraph 48 of this judgment, and the authority initiating such action is empowered to carry the matter to its logical conclusion. The term “logical conclusion” does not invariably refer to an order of assessment in every case. Rather, it denotes the decision arrived at by the officers of the Department, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case.

II. Whether “subject matter” within the meaning of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act includes all matters dealt with in summons under the Act?

78. In the 11th GST Council Meeting, the Council agreed that in respect of any dispute involving tax liability under both the CGST Act and the SGST Act, only a single order shall be passed. Accordingly, where a Central tax officer passes an order, necessarily encompassing

p. 1778

the demand for tax under the SGST Act, the corresponding State tax officer shall be precluded from passing a separate order on the same dispute. It was in furtherance of this understanding that Section 6 of the CGST Act was enacted. We may reproduce the provision in discussion; “(2) Subject to the conditions specified in the notification issued under sub-section (1),–– xxx (b) where a proper officer under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act has initiated any proceedings on a subject matter, no proceedings shall be initiated by the proper officer under this Act on the same subject matter.”

79. What emerges from the foregoing discussion is the implicit understanding that the subject matter in question pertains to the determination of tax liability, referred to as “dispute”. This reinforces the legislative intent of ensuring that an order passed under the statute will be comprehensive in nature, more particularly, covering the entirety of the dispute so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, conflicting determinations, or jurisdictional overlap.

80. The High Court of Allahabad, in G.K. Trading (supra), interpreted the phrase “subject matter” to mean ‘cause of action’ in relation to the same dispute in a proceeding before a proper officer under the relevant GST enactment. The relevant extracts are reproduced hereinbelow: “14. Thus, the phrase “subject-matter”, or the phrase “on the same subject- matter”, used in section 6(2)(b) of the UPGST Act/CGST Act with reference to any proceedings, means same cause of action for the same dispute involved in a proceeding before proper officer under the UPGST Act and the CGST Act. xxx

17. Thus, section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act prohibits separate initiation of proceedings on the same subject-matter by the proper officer under the CGST Act when proceeding on the same subject-matter by the proper officer under the State Act has been initiated, whereas section 70

p. 1779

M/s Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate & Anr.

of the UPGST/CGST Act merely empowers the proper officer to summon any person in any inquiry. The word “proceedings” used in section 6(2)(b) is qualified by the words “subject-matter” which indicates an adjudication process/proceedings on the same cause of action and for the same dispute which may be proceedings relating to assessment, audit, demands and recovery, and offences and penalties, etc.[…]” (Emphasis supplied)

81. In Satyam Castings Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Director, DGGI, Bhubaneshwar, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Ori 1624, the High Court of Orissa also equated “subject matter” with ‘cause of action’. The relevant extracts are reproduced hereinbelow: “21. The relevant fact to be borne in mind is the subject- matter of the proceeding. If the subject-matter of the proceeding is entirely different, there is no bar to the maintainability of the proceeding. What is barred is the initiation of the proceeding on the same subject-matter by the proper officer. The words “subject-matter” can be equated with words “cause of action”. The reason behind barring the initiation of proceeding on the same subject- matter by the proper officer under the State Goods and Services tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services tax Act seems to be that the possibility of the final decision in the two proceedings being different cannot be totally ruled out which would create confusion. In the case of Vallabh Das v. Dr. Madan Lal reported in [(1970) 1 SCC 761 : AIR 1970 SC 987.] , it is held that the expression “subject-matter” is not defined in the Civil Procedure Code. That expression includes the cause of action and the relief claimed. Unless the cause of action and the relief claimed in the second suit are the same as in the first suit, it cannot be said that the subject-matter of the second suit is the same as that in the previous suit.” (Emphasis supplied)

82. However, we shall now proceed to interpret the term “subject matter” as employed in Section 6(2)(b) of the Act. It is abundantly clear from

p. 1780

the purport of the said section that “subject matter” needs to be understood in perspective of initiation of proceedings. In other words, subject matter of the proceedings. In the preceding paragraphs of this judgment, we have stated that proceedings stand initiated when a show cause notice is issued with regard to a subject matter. We say so because an issuance of a show cause notice is the first stage whereby the Revenue for the very first time elaborately pens down various grounds and charges it is alleging against the assessee, who is invited to show cause as to why adverse action must not be taken against him on the basis of the apprehensions that the authority contemplates.

83. We shall now consider the contents of a show cause notice, bearing in mind the manner in which they facilitate the determination of the subject matter of the proceedings. In Gorkha Security Services v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2014) 9 SCC 105, this Court poignantly explained the cardinal principles behind the issuance of a show cause notice. It held that the service of a show cause notice is made in order to inform the noticee about the case that has been set up against him, which he has to meet. The relevant paragraphs have been supplied below: “Contents of the show-cause notice

21. The central issue, however, pertains to the requirement of stating the action which is proposed to be taken. The fundamental purpose behind the serving of show-cause notice is to make the noticee understand the precise case set up against him which he has to meet. This would require the statement of imputations detailing out the alleged breaches and defaults he has committed, so that he gets an opportunity to rebut the same. Another requirement, according to us, is the nature of action which is proposed to be taken for such a breach. That should also be stated so that the noticee is able to point out that proposed action is not warranted in the given case, even if the defaults/ breaches complained of are not satisfactorily explained. When it comes to blacklisting, this requirement becomes all the more imperative, having regard to the fact that it is harshest possible action. (Emphasis supplied)

p. 1781

M/s Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate & Anr.

84. Primacy is given to the cogency of a show cause notice. The subject matter of the proceedings lies in the contents of the notice. Hence, it ought to be exhaustive, so much so that it is capable of presenting the case of the Revenue in a nutshell. In The Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar-I v. Champdany Industries Limited, reported in (2009) 9 SCC 466, while deciding upon the classification of jute carpets, this Court noted that in the failure of mentioning the application of certain tests which the Revenue relied upon in the proceedings before the Court, the Revenue cannot rely on such tests at a later stage. A show cause notice must lay down the foundation of the case. Such is the importance of a show cause as a starting point in proceedings. The relevant extracts have been supplied below: “50. Apart from that, the point on Rule 3 which has been argued by the learned counsel for the Revenue was not part of its case in the show-cause notice. It is well settled that unless the foundation of the case is made out in the show-cause notice, Revenue cannot in Court argue a case not made out in its show-cause notice. See: Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v. Toyo Engineering India Limited MANU/SC/3625/2006 : (2006) 7 SCC 592, para 16.

51. Similar view was expressed by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. MANU/SC/3595/2007 : (2007) 8 SCC 89. In paragraph 27 of the said report, learned Judges made it clear that if there is no invocation of the concerned rules in the show-cause notice, it would not be open to the Commissioner to invoke the said Rule.” (Emphasis supplied)

85. From the above exposition of law, we can safely conclude that a show cause notice delineates the scope of the proceedings in the expression of subject matter with which the authority would be dealing. It would be impermissible for an authority to invoke such rules, claims or grounds at a later stage which do not figure in the show cause notice. That is to say, any ground, reasoning or claim which does not figure out in the show cause notice cannot be permitted to adversely affect the noticee. Such recognition has even been made statutorily, as per sub-section (7) of Section 75 of the Act, which reads as thus:

p. 1782

“75. General provisions relating to determination of tax.—... xxx (7) The amount of tax, interest and penalty demanded in the order shall not be in excess of the amount specified in the notice and no demand shall be confirmed on the grounds other than the grounds specified in the notice.”

86. The expression “subject matter” contemplates proceedings directed towards determining the taxpayer’s liability or contravention, encompassing the alleged offence or non-compliance together with the relief or demand sought by the Revenue, as articulated in the show cause notice through its charges, grounds, and quantification of demand. Accordingly, the bar on the “same subject matter” is attracted only where both proceedings seek to assess or recover an identical liability, or even where there is the slightest overlap in the tax liability or obligation.

87. In other words, under Section 6(2)(b), the “subject matter” is intrinsically tied to the determination of the specific violation under scrutiny or the liability alleged to be unpaid. The statutory bar is triggered only when the two proceedings against the same taxpayer are, in substance, directed towards the very same or overlapping deficiency in tax discharge or the identical contravention alleged. Where the proceedings concern distinct infractions, each Department is entitled to proceed within its respective statutory remit without infringing the prohibition. Where the proceedings concern distinct infractions, each Department is entitled to proceed within its respective statutory remit without infringing the prohibition.

88. In order to bolster such embodiments of Section 6(2)(b) at large, we lay down a twofold test, discernible from our discussion above, to determine whether a subject matter is “same”: first, the subject matter will be considered the same 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.

89. In the present case, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the subject matter of the proceedings pertained to the availability of input tax credit in respect of cancelled dealers. However, this contention fails for two reasons: first, the summons, on its own, cannot reveal the subject matter; and secondly, the subject matter can be

p. 1783

M/s Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate & Anr.

ascertained only from the show cause notice. The apprehension of the petitioner cannot be countenanced merely because a facet of the ongoing inquiry overlaps with the subject matter of the show cause notice already issued.

90. Upon crystallization of the subject matter through a show cause notice issued pursuant to an intelligence, no other tax authority may assume jurisdiction over it, provided it is ascertainable that the consequences of any further departmental action would be subsumed within the same subject matter.

III. What is the purport of an “Order” under Section 6(2)(a) of the CGST Act?

91. Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the CGST Act stipulates that where any proper officer issues an order under the CGST Act, he must issue an order under the SGST Act or the UGST Act in order to intimate the jurisdictional officer of the State tax or Union territory tax. The provision reads thus: “(2) Subject to the conditions specified in the notification issued under sub-section (1),–– (a) where any proper officer issues an order under this Act, he shall also issue an order under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, as authorised by the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, as the case may be, under intimation to the jurisdictional officer of State tax or Union territory tax;”

92. In construing Section 6(2)(a), it is imperative to have due regard to the legislative intent permeating the GST enactments. Section 6, in particular, advances the objective of establishing a unified national market for goods and services and to prevent taxpayers from the undue hardship of being subjected to the rigours of multiple jurisdictions.

93. The provision serves a twofold purpose: first, to insulate taxpayers from the prospect of being proceeded against by more than one authority for the same subject matter; and secondly, to vest in the officers functioning under the CGST Act, the SGST Act, or the UTGST

p. 1784

Act, to render a comprehensive order, thereby avoiding multiplicity of proceedings. Such a construction is also in consonance with the well-recognized principle of comity between jurisdictions, which mandates that coordinate authorities must act with mutual respect and due regard for each other’s domain, so as to preclude the possibility of conflicting determinations on the same issue.

94. To give effect to the above intent, Section 6(2)(a) is couched in terms that are both enabling and mandatory. It confers upon, and simultaneously obliges, the proper officer to issue a corresponding order under the SGST Act or the UTGST Act in cases where an order is being issued under the CGST Act. The expression ‘order’, qualified by the terms “under this Act”, occurring in the said provision admits of a broad construction, so as to include every form of order which a proper officer is competent to issue by virtue of the authority vested in them under the statute. Such an interpretation is necessary to ensure that the statutory mandate achieves its intended purpose of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings and securing uniformity of adjudication across the parallel enactments.

95. Inasmuch as the CGST Act vests the proper officer with authority to issue “orders” under various provisions, it becomes imperative that such officer duly apprises the jurisdictional counterpart of any action initiated by the Department in relation to a taxable person who may otherwise fall within the administrative domain of that officer. Given that the statutory framework envisages a regime of cross- empowerment amongst officers, the obligation so cast operates as a safeguard against the prejudice which may arise from the initiation of parallel or overlapping proceedings against the same taxpayer by different wings of the Department.

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.

p. 1785

M/s Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate & Anr.

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 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.

p. 1786

a. Where a summons or a show cause notice is issued by either the Central or the State tax authority to an assessee, the assessee is, in the first instance, obliged to comply by appearing and furnishing the requisite response, as the case may be. We say, so because, mere issuance of a summons does not enable either the issuing authority or the recipient to ascertain that proceedings have been initiated. b. Where an assessee becomes aware that the matter being inquired into or investigated is already the subject of an inquiry or investigation by another authority, the assessee shall forthwith inform, in writing, the authority that has initiated the subsequent inquiry or investigation. c. Upon receipt of such intimation from the assessee, the respective tax authorities shall communicate with each other to verify the veracity of the assessee’s claim. We say, so as this course of action would obviate needless duplication of proceedings and ensure optimal utilization of the Department’s time, effort, and resources, bearing in mind that action initiated by one authority enures to benefit of all. d. If the claim of the taxable person regarding the overlap of inquiries is found untenable, and the investigations of the two authorities pertain to different “subject matters”, an intimation to this effect, along with the reasons and a specification of the distinct subject matters, shall be immediately conveyed in writing to the taxable person. e. The taxing authorities are well within their rights to conduct an inquiry or investigation until it is ascertained that both authorities are examining the identical liability to be discharged, the same contravention alleged, or the issuance of a show cause notice. Any show cause notice issued in respect of a liability already covered by an existing show cause notice shall be quashed. f. However, if the Central or the State tax authority, as the case may be finds that the matter being inquired into or investigated by it is already the subject of inquiry or investigation by another authority, both authorities shall decide inter-se which of them shall continue with the inquiry or investigation. In such a

p. 1787

M/s Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate & Anr.

scenario the other authority shall duly forward all material and information relating to its inquiry or investigation into the matter to the authority designated to carry the inquiry or investigation to its logical conclusion. We say, so because, the taxable person except for being afforded the statutory protection from duplication of proceedings, otherwise has no locus to claim which authority should proceed with the inquiry or investigation in a particular matter. g. However, where the authorities are unable to reach a decision as to which of them shall continue with the inquiry or investigation, then in such circumstances, the authority that first initiated the inquiry or investigation shall be empowered to carry it to its logical conclusion, and the courts in such a case would be competent to pass an order for transferring the inquiry or investigation to that authority. h. If it is found that the authorities are not complying with these aforementioned guidelines, it shall be open to the taxable person to file a writ petition before the concerned High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. i. At the same time, taxable persons shall ensure complete cooperation with the authorities. It is incumbent upon them to appear in response to a summons and/or reply to a notice.

98. Before parting with this matter, we deem it appropriate to make certain suggestions concerning the common IT infrastructure shared by the Central and State tax authorities. It is imperative that the Departments act in harmony and maintain heightened vigilance with respect to intelligence inputs received by them, so as to give full effect to the legislative intent underlying the GST regime. Such coordination would also serve to mitigate the unnecessary hardship caused to taxpayers by overlapping proceedings and lack of inter- Departmental communication.

99. The DGGI may consider adopting necessary measures to develop a robust mechanism for seamless data and intelligence sharing between the Central and State authorities, including provision for real-time visibility to both authorities of any action taken pursuant to an intelligence input, thereby advancing the objectives of harmony and cooperative federalism.

p. 1788

100. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Petition disposed of.