M/S J.B. Rollng Mills LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Held

The Court held that the issue concerning the prohibition of parallel proceedings under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, when proceedings have already been initiated by another jurisdictional authority on the same subject matter, is substantially resolved by the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East & Anr. The Court noted that the Armour Security judgment clarifies the scope of 'initiation of proceedings', 'subject-matter', and the inter-relationship between Central and State GST authorities. Applying these principles, the Court found no further adjudication was required beyond issuing directions consistent with the law declared. The Court directed the petitioner to appear before both Central and State Authorities, file responses to the summons/notices, and raise contentions with relevant documents by December 15, 2025. The petitioner was also directed to comply with summons and inform both authorities about the issuance of notices/summons as per para 97(a) & (b) of the Armour judgment. Subsequently, the State Authority was to communicate with the Central Authority to verify the petitioner's claim, and both authorities were to coordinate to prevent multiple adjudicatory processes on the same subject matter. The adjudicatory authority would then proceed in accordance with law, including providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The Court explicitly stated it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations or the validity of the summons/notices, keeping all rights and contentions open.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s J.B. Rolling Mills Limited, filed a writ petition challenging notices issued by Central GST authorities. The petitioner contended that the State GST Authority had already initiated proceedings on the same subject matter, and therefore, the Central Authority was barred from initiating parallel proceedings under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned notice (Ann P-6) or keep it in abeyance until the State GST Authority completed its proceedings under Section 70 of the Act. The Central and State GST authorities stated they would abide by Section 6(2)(b) and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in M/s Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East & Anr.

Key Issues

1. Whether the issuance of summons/notices by the Central GST authorities under Section 70 and 79 of the CGST Act, 2017, is barred by Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017, due to prior initiation of proceedings by the State GST Authority on the same subject matter? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act prohibits the initiation of parallel proceedings on the same subject matter when proceedings have already been initiated by another jurisdictional authority. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East & Anr. to support their claim that the Central Authority's action was impermissible. Respondents' contention: The respondents (Central and State GST authorities) submitted that they would adhere to the statutory mandate of Section 6(2)(b) and the guidelines laid down in the Armour Security case. They assured that appropriate coordination would be maintained to prevent parallel adjudicatory proceedings. They also referred to various High Court judgments that directed petitioners to present their case before competent authorities for decision in terms of the Armour Security judgment.