Cross Empowerment and Common Adjudication under GST: Need for a Clear, Functional “Cross Empowerment Committee”
1. Why this topic matters
The everyday question we are facing in practice is: “Which officer will adjudicate – Central or State?” and “Can State officers jump into a case already handled by Central, or vice‑versa, just because they are ‘cross‑empowered’?”
On paper, section 6 of the CGST Act and the mirror section in SGST Acts talk of cross‑empowerment and bar parallel proceedings, but at ground level, we see notices from both sides, transfer of files without transparent orders, and sometimes State jurisdiction officers adjudicating matters clearly allocated to Central formations.
This is exactly where one expects a strong, structured “cross empowerment committee” or at least a clear common mechanism, to control administration, allocate cases and avoid harassment.
2. Statutory base: Section 6 CGST/SGST and GST Council decisions
Section 6(1) of the CGST Act says that officers appointed under the SGST Act shall be authorised to act as proper officers for CGST purposes, subject to conditions, and vice‑versa under section 6 of SGST Acts.
The GST Council, in its 9th meeting (16‑01‑2017), recommended that officers of both Central tax and State tax can initiate intelligence‑based enforcement action on the entire taxpayer base, regardless of administrative assignment; this was followed up by cross‑empowerment circulars and internal instructions.
The idea was very simple: taxpayer is one, tax is one, and law is one – hence, both wings should be able to enforce, but with proper coordination so that there is no dual adjudication.
3. Cross empowerment in practice: administrative assignment vs legal power
Practically, every GSTIN is administratively “assigned” either to Central or State formations for routine matters like registration, returns scrutiny, audits, etc.
However, cross‑empowerment means that, in law, a CGST officer can exercise powers under SGST and a SGST officer can exercise powers under CGST, subject to notifications and the conditions set by the Council.
A recent line of thinking (and at least one High Court) has taken the view that cross‑empowerment is inherent and automatic under section 6(1), and a notification is needed only if conditions are to be imposed, not to create empowerment itself.
Conversely, some detailed commentaries and articles point out that if an assessee has been assigned administratively to Central, then, in the absence of a specific notification under section 6 of the SGST Act, State officers should not disturb the proceedings already undertaken by Central, especially for assessment/adjudication.
4. Concept of a “cross empowerment committee”
While the GST statutes do not use the exact phrase “Cross Empowerment Committee”, the reality is that the GST Council and its officer‑level bodies (Law Committee, Fitment Committee, etc.) perform this role at the macro level.
At the operational level, there is often a zonal or regional coordination committee between Principal Chief Commissioners (CGST) and State Commissioners, to decide:
Which authority will take up a particular investigation;
How to allocate multi‑State or multi‑GSTIN cases;
How to avoid both wings issuing separate SCNs on the same issue and same period.
In an ideal, transparent system, this “cross empowerment committee” should:
Maintain a registry of major joint investigations;
Record decisions on who will issue SCN and who will adjudicate;
Issue speaking orders when jurisdiction is shifted from Central to State or vice‑versa, especially in contentious matters.
Unfortunately, in most States, this remains an internal coordination mechanism, not a formal statutory body whose orders are published.
5. Members and role of such a committee (practical view)
Typical composition at the State or zonal level, consistent with GST Council‑style arrangements, would be:
Principal Chief Commissioner / Chief Commissioner of Central Tax (Chair/Co‑chair);
Commissioner of State GST;
Additional/Joint Commissioners from both sides (enforcement, audit, policy);
Representatives from the legal cell (to review court decisions and pending litigations).
The practical functions, drawn from cross‑empowerment decisions and circulars, include:
Deciding which administration (Central or State) will handle intelligence‑based enforcement, especially when both have flagged the same taxpayer.
Approving transfer of adjudication from one jurisdiction (say, DGGI or State enforcement) to a “Common Adjudicating Authority” in another Commissionerate or State, based on CBIC circulars.
Ensuring that once one authority has initiated proceedings under section 67, 73, or 74, the other does not start a parallel proceeding for the same matter.
Reviewing complaints from taxpayers about dual proceedings and suggesting remedial action (withdrawal of one SCN, treating it as invalid).
Thus, even if not named in the statute, a cross-empowerment committee is the brain of coordination between CGST and SGST wings.
6. Control over administration of CGST and SGST
Control over administration under GST is “shared” rather than divided. Section 6 and the Council’s recommendations create a framework where:
Both Central and State officers are vested with similar powers under both Acts;
The administrative assignment and internal circulars decide who will actually use those powers in a particular case;
Section 6(2)(b) specifically bars parallel proceedings – if one authority has initiated proceedings on an issue for a tax period, the other should not initiate for the same matter.
Courts have highlighted this in several decisions, holding that:
Once CGST has initiated action for a given cause and period, SGST cannot run its own separate proceedings on the same issue, and vice‑versa;
At most, the “other” wing can assist, share information or join the investigation, but cannot independently adjudicate a parallel SCN.
This effectively means that the control is exercised through coordination, “first‑come” principle in law (who initiates first) and by internal committees that decide allocation and transfer.
7. Transfer of adjudication from one jurisdiction to another
There are two important aspects here – (a) transfer within the same administration (Central to Central, State to State); and (b) transfer across administrations (Central to State or State to Central).
7.1. Transfer within Central (or within State)
CBIC has, over time, issued several circulars to streamline which authority adjudicates SCNs, especially when they are issued by specialised formations such as DGGI, audit, intelligence or anti‑evasion.
One such circular clarifies that:
SCNs issued by intelligence, enforcement and audit verticals under sections 73/74 should be adjudicated by jurisdictional officers in the “Taxpayer Services” vertical, based on PIN code and monetary limits;
This realignment applies prospectively from a notified date (e.g., 10‑01‑2023 in one circular);
Where no order was passed by a cut‑off date, the SCN can be realigned to the new authority through corrigenda.
More recently, there is a trend towards appointing a “Common Adjudicating Authority” (CAA) – typically an Additional/Joint Commissioner with “all‑India” jurisdiction – to adjudicate multi‑State or multi‑GSTIN SCNs linked to the same investigation.
7.2. Transfer between Central and State – cross‑empowerment angle
When a case has both CGST and SGST components, the common practice is:
One authority (say, CGST) leads the investigation and issues a consolidated SCN covering both Central and State portions;
The same authority adjudicates the matter, but its order operates for both CGST and SGST liability, by virtue of cross‑empowerment;
The “other” authority (SGST) refrains from issuing a separate SCN on the same issue.
If there is a need to transfer adjudication from Central officer to a state officer (or vice‑versa) – say, for administrative convenience or better local knowledge – ideally, this should be done through:
A formal order at the level of the cross-empowerment committee or equivalent higher authority;
Intimation to the taxpayer, explaining why jurisdiction is changing and under what authority;
Clear mention in the order that the new officer is acting as a “proper officer” under both Acts by virtue of section 6.
Where such transparent procedure is not followed, taxpayers have a strong argument that the new officer lacks proper jurisdiction to adjudicate.
8. Judicial view on cross empowerment and dual adjudication
Courts are increasingly clarifying the contours of cross‑empowerment:
A TaxTMI article summarises that without a proper notification under section 6, if a taxpayer has been administratively assigned to Central, State authorities cannot step in and start their own assessment in conflict with Central proceedings.
Another write‑up on “Parallel GST Proceedings” notes that courts, including the Himachal Pradesh High Court, have held that if CGST has initiated proceedings (e.g., search or inspection under section 67), SGST cannot set up a separate, parallel action for the same cause and period, and vice‑versa, by virtue of section 6(2)(b).
In one Himachal Pradesh High Court decision (as reported), once State GST initiated proceedings, the High Court held that the same authority must take it to its logical end; it cannot be casually transferred or duplicated by another authority.
Another line of reasoning, highlighted in updates around October 2025, is that cross‑empowerment under section 6 is “inherent and automatic”, and that the words “subject to such conditions as may be specified by notification” mean the notification is only for imposing conditions, not for granting power.
Taken together, these views mean:
Cross‑empowerment exists in law, but must be used in a way that does not violate section 6(2)(b) (no parallel proceedings);
Administrative assignment and proper notification/committee decisions are still critical for deciding “who” will actually adjudicate in a given case;
Taxpayers can challenge actions of a “second” authority that duplicates an existing proceeding.
9. What if a State (JDN) directs its officers to adjudicate Central jurisdiction cases without committee order?
Let us now come to your specific, practical question: if a State (for example, JDN State) issues internal instructions that its SGST officers should adjudicate cases which are clearly within Central jurisdiction (administratively assigned GSTINs), and does so without any formal order or approval of a cross-empowerment committee or GST Council‑aligned procedure, what is the position?
9.1. Legal vulnerability of such adjudication
Such unilateral action raises multiple legal issues:
It may be contrary to the administrative assignment decisions taken under GST Council guidelines and communicated through cross‑empowerment circulars (like the 2017 circulars);
If Central authorities have already initiated proceedings on the same issue and period, section 6(2)(b) bars the State from starting its own adjudication;
If there is no specific notification or Council‑approved scheme allocating such cases to the State officers, taxpayers can argue that the SGST officer lacks proper jurisdiction and the proceedings are without authority of law.
Courts have been sympathetic to such arguments where dual proceedings or jurisdictional overreach is apparent, and have quashed one of the proceedings or directed that only one authority should continue.
9.2. Possible grounds of challenge by taxpayers
Taxpayers and professionals can raise the following grounds in representations and writ petitions:
Violation of section 6(2)(b) – once CGST/SGST has initiated proceedings, the other authority is barred from initiating;
Lack of proper notification or Council recommendation to support such unilateral assumption of jurisdiction;
Absence of any order from a competent cross empowerment or coordination committee transferring adjudication from Central to State;
Breach of natural justice where jurisdiction is shifted without informing the assessee and without a speaking order.
Where the State’s direction is merely an internal circular, not based on Council‑approved cross‑empowerment notification, it becomes even more vulnerable.
10. Practical example scenario
Consider a manufacturer in Karnataka, administratively assigned to CGST for all purposes.
DGGI or local CGST Commissionerate conducts investigation, issues summons, and finally issues a SCN under sections 73/74, covering both CGST and SGST components (using cross‑empowerment).
Before adjudication is completed, the State GST department issues an internal circular directing its officers to adjudicate all cases involving “X industry” or involving certain intelligence inputs, including this same manufacturer.
The State officer then issues:
Either a fresh SCN for the same issue and period; or
A notice claiming to “take over” adjudication of the SCN issued by CGST, without any reference to a cross empowerment or coordination committee’s order.
In such a case:
The taxpayer can strongly argue that State cannot start parallel proceedings due to section 6(2)(b);
The attempt to “take over” adjudication without a Council‑backed transfer mechanism or specific formal order is bad in law;
The taxpayer may approach the High Court under Article 226, seeking quashing of the State proceedings, relying upon judicial thinking that “if one authority has started proceedings, the same cannot be transferred or duplicated casually by another authority.”
This kind of fact pattern is already reflected in several High Court rulings on dual proceedings and cross‑empowerment, though every case will turn on its precise notifications and facts.
11. Role of circulars and notifications
Key circular/notification ideas relevant to this subject are:
Cross‑empowerment communications around September 2017 (for example, F.No.166/Cross Empowerment/GSTC/2017), which recorded Council decisions that State/Centre officers are authorised to initiate intelligence‑based enforcement across the taxpayer base, and that suitable notifications will be issued under CGST/IGST/SGST Acts.
Subsequent CBIC circulars (for example, around 2023 and 2024) shifting adjudication of SCNs issued by intelligence/audit/enforcement to jurisdictional “Taxpayer Services” authorities and, later, to common adjudicating authorities for multi‑State cases.
Clarificatory literature and updates emphasising that such circulars do not override section 6(2)(b) – they only distribute work within one wing (Central) and cannot authorise a second wing (State) to start a parallel proceeding on the same cause and period.
Professionals must read these circulars carefully, because sometimes field officers rely on them without appreciating their limits – especially the bar on dual proceedings.
12. Emerging concept of “Common Adjudicating Authority”
In complex cases involving:
Multiple GSTINs across different States;
Multiple SCNs raising the same issue;
Common investigations by DGGI or joint enforcement teams,
CBIC has now moved towards a system where one Additional/Joint Commissioner is notified as “Common Adjudicating Authority” with all‑India jurisdiction, based on the location of the notice with the highest tax demand.
Important features of this model:
It reduces conflicting orders from multiple Commissionerate;
It clarifies who will pass the order and where appeal lies (Commissioner Appeals of the same jurisdiction as the CAA);
It still respects cross‑empowerment because the CAA is treated as proper officer for all relevant GSTINs and both CGST/SGST components for the case.
In effect, this serves the same policy objective that a robust “cross empowerment committee” would serve – a single, coordinated adjudication for multi‑State/multi‑party disputes.
13. Way forward – what professionals and taxpayers should insist on
From a policy and practice perspective, there is a strong need for:
Formalising the cross-empowerment committee at the State/zonal level, with explicit terms of reference, member list and powers;
Publishing key jurisdictional decisions, especially transfer of adjudication from Central to State or vice‑versa, so that taxpayers are not surprised;
Ensuring alignment with section 6(2)(b) – no dual proceedings; only one authority should issue SCN and complete adjudication, while the other may assist or join as necessary.
Professionals should advise clients to:
Promptly object to any second SCN from another wing on the same issue and period, citing section 6(2)(b) and relevant case‑law;
Seek copies of any order or direction by the cross empowerment/coordination committee when jurisdiction is claimed to be shifted;
Consider writ remedy where jurisdiction is clearly exceeded or proceedings are patently duplicative.
Conclusion
Cross‑empowerment under GST was conceived as a facilitative tool – to allow both Central and State officers to act interchangeably, so that enforcement is efficient and taxpayers do not fall into gaps. Yet, without a transparent and disciplined mechanism like a well‑defined “cross empowerment committee”, the same tool can become a weapon for dual proceedings and jurisdictional overreach.
Judicial pronouncements are gradually affirming the core principle embedded in section 6(2)(b): once one authority has initiated proceedings on a particular matter and period, the other authority must step back and cannot carry on a parallel adjudication, except by way of lawful transfer supported by proper notifications and reasoned orders. The internal directions of a State to its officers cannot override these statutory safeguards and cannot authorise adjudication of cases clearly administratively assigned to the Central jurisdiction without a valid, Council‑aligned cross‑empowerment decision.
It is therefore time for both administrations to institutionalise a joint, documented “cross empowerment committee” process that records which authority will adjudicate what, and on what basis. Until that happens, tax professionals and taxpayers must remain alert, question overlapping notices, and, where necessary, seek judicial protection against unlawful dual proceedings. This is not merely a technical jurisdictional skirmish; it goes to the heart of fairness, certainty and trust in our GST system – something which all of us, as practitioners and officers alike, are duty‑bound to preserve.
******
Author: S.PRASAD, Auditor & GST Practitioner, Mysore
Author Bio
