Supreme Court rules on GST summons and parallel proceedings under CGST Act.
SC CLARIFIES SECTION 6(2)(B) CGST ACT ON SUMMONS AND PARALLEL PROCEEDINGS
CASE SUMMARY – In M/S Armour Security (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East, the Supreme Court addressed whether summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act constitute “initiation of proceedings” under Section 6(2)(b). The petitioner argued that parallel investigations by Central GST were barred, as State GST had already initiated action. The Court, analyzing multiple High Court rulings, held that summons are part of inquiry and not proceedings like assessment or demand. It reaffirmed GST’s framework of single interface and cross-empowerment. The SLP was dismissed, clarifying that summons do not amount to prohibited parallel proceedings under Section 6(2)(b).
| ASPECT | DETAILS |
| Case Title | M/S Armour Security (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate & Anr. |
| Introduction | The case revolves around whether issuance of summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act constitutes “initiation of proceedings” under Section 6(2)(b). |
| Factual Background | The petitioner, a security services company, faced show cause notice under Section 73 for alleged tax discrepancies. Later, searches and summons were issued by Central GST officers despite State GST authorities already initiating action. |
| Legal Issues | 1. Does issuance of summons amount to “initiation of proceedings”?
2. Does “subject matter” under Section 6(2)(b) include summons? 3. Interpretation of “Order” under Section 6(2)(a). |
| Applicable Law | Section 6(2)(b), Section 70, Section 73, Section 74 of the CGST Act, Circular dated 05.10.2018, and precedents from various High Courts. |
| Analysis | The Supreme Court reviewed conflicting High Court decisions, distinguishing between “proceedings” (assessment, demand, penalty) and “inquiry” (summons, investigation). It emphasized GST’s framework of single interface and cross-empowerment. |
| Conclusion | Summons under Section 70 are not “proceedings” under Section 6(2)(b). The petitioner’s challenge was dismissed. |
| Current Scenario | The SLP was dismissed; jurisdiction of GST authorities reaffirmed. The case clarified that taxpayers may face summons even if another authority is already handling proceedings. |
“Issuance of summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act does not constitute initiation of proceedings under Section 6(2)(b).”
SOURCE – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
READ ALSO – SC CANCELS BAIL OF SUSHIL KUMAR IN CHHATRASAL STADIUM MURDER CASE
