Case Details: Friends Alloys vs. Union of India (2025) 37 Centax 92 (H.P.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Vivek Singh Thakur & Sushil Kukreja, JJ.
- Shri Ajay Vaidya, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri Vijay Arora, Sr. Advocate, Narinder Singh Thakur, CGC, Sushant Keprate, Additional Advocate General, Ms Aatha Kohli & Hitansh Raj, Advocates, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a registered person under CGST and Himachal Pradesh GST Acts, sought quashing of summons issued by the central GST authority under Section 70 of CGST and a show cause notice under Section 74 ibid, or in the alternative, abeyance of the said show cause notice, invoking the bar on parallel adjudication proceedings under Section 6(2)(b) ibid. The state GST authority had first initiated proceedings through summons, followed by an intimation in Form GST DRC-01A under Rule 142(1A) of CGST Rules. Subsequently, the central authority issued summons and a show cause notice concerning the same subject matter. The petitioner contended that the subsequent adjudicatory actions by the central authority were barred by the first-in-time principle as laid down in Section 6(2)(b) of CGST and sought directions to avoid multiple proceedings. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that, in accordance with the ratio of the apex court in Armour Security [(2025) 33 Centax 222 (S.C.) = 2025 (101) G.S.T.L. 289 (S.C.)], only the first-in-time authority could pursue adjudicatory proceedings on the same subject matter, while a subsequent authority was barred from initiating parallel adjudication inconsistent with Section 6(2)(b) ibid. However, bona fide investigatory steps, including issuance of summons, remained permissible unless they constituted the commencement of a parallel proceeding. Applying the said ratio, the court directed that the petitioner was required to respond to the show cause notice and comply with the state authority summons while raising contentions on the bar before both authorities. The authorities were further directed to coordinate to ensure that the assessee was not subjected to multiple adjudicatory processes on the same issue. No opinion was expressed on the merits or validity of the show cause notice or summons, and the matter was remanded for compliance.
List of Cases Cited
- Agrawal Soya Extracts (P) Ltd. v. Union of India — (2025) 35 Centax 146 (M.P.) — Referred [Para 6]
- Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner — (2025) 33 Centax 222 (S.C.) = 2025 (101) G.S.T.L. 289 (S.C.) — Followed [Paras 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13]
- Ravi Steel Industries v. Union of India — (2025) 35 Centax 245 (Bom.) = 2025 (103) G.S.T.L. 266 (Bom.) — Referred [Para 6]
- Sensation Infracon (P) Ltd. v. State of Telangana — (2025) 34 Centax 28 (Telangana) = 2025 (102) G.S.T.L. 76 (Telangana) — Referred [Para 6]
