LexM/S ARMOUR SECURITY (INDIA) LTD. versus COMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI EAST COMMISSIONERATE & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1727 : 2025 INSC 982 M/s Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate & Anr. (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6092 of 2025) 14 August 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein, and declined from interdicting the summons dated 16.01.2025 and 23.01.2025 respectively, issued to the petitioner u/s.70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) by the Commissioner, Central Good and Services Tax, Delhi East Commissionerate (respondent no.1). Headnotes† Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 – s.6(2)(b) – Bar under: Held: Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of s.6 of the CGST Act and the equivalent State enactments bars the “initiation of any proceedings” on the “same subject matter”. [Para 96(i)] Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 – Intelligence based enforcement action – Parallel proceedings: Held: 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 – Parallel proceedings should not be initiated by other tax administration when one of the tax administrations has already initiated intelligence- based enforcement action. [Para 96(iii), (iv)] Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 – s.6(2)(b) – Proceedings: Held: 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 s.6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. [Para 96(v)] * Author 1728 [2025] 8 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 – s.6(2)(b) – Expression “initiation of any proceedings”: Held: The expression “initiation of any proceedings” occurring in s.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. [Para 96(vi)] Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 – Expression “subject matter”: Held: 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. [Para 96(vii)] Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 – s.6(2)(b) – When the bar of Section 6(2)(b) would be immediately attracted: Held: 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 s.6(2)(b) would be immediately attracted. [Para 96(viii)] Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 – s.6(2)(b) – Distinct infractions – Same subject matter: Held: 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. [Para 96(ix)] Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 – ss.6(2)(b), 70 – Scope and Ambit of “initiated any proceedings” u/s.6(2)(b) – The Petitioner is a public limited company engaged in the business of providing security services – On 18.11.2024, petitioner received a show cause notice u/s.73 of the Act from the respondent no.2, raising demand of Rs. 1,24,92,162/- u/ss.50 and 74 of CGST Act, 2017 – Thereafter, two summons dated 16.01.2025 and 23.01.2025 respectively were issued by respondent no.1 to the petitioner directing one of the directors of the petitioner to produce relevant documents – Being aggrieved by the said summons the petitioner preferred [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1729 M/s Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate & Anr. a writ petition before the High Court, on the ground that as the respondent no. 2 had already made the investigation in respect of the same issue and the respondent no. 1 does not have the jurisdiction in view of s.6(2)(b) of the CGST Act – Writ petition dismissed – High Court held that the expression “any proceeding” in s.6(2)(b) cannot be construed to include a search or investigation – The High Court further held that a summons or investigation pursuant to a search constitutes only a precursor to the formal proceedings – Correctness: Held: s.6(2)(b) of the CGST Act precludes a proper of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.