Armour Security (India) Ltd. Vs Commissioner (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark judgment delivered on August 14, 2025, in the case of M/s Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate & Anr. [Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6092 of 2025 dated August 14, 2025], has provided crucial clarity on the interpretation of Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”). This ruling addresses the persistent ambiguity surrounding the “initiation of proceedings” and “same subject matter” in the context of parallel investigations and/ or proceedings by the Central and State tax authorities. The Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, upholding the High Court’s decision not to interfere with summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act.
Case Background (Factual Matrix):
The Petitioner, M/S ARMOUR SECURITY (INDIA) LTD., a public limited company providing security services and registered with Delhi GST authorities, became involved in a dispute concerning tax demands and investigations.
- Initial Show Cause Notice (SCN): On November 18, 2024, Respondent No. 2 (State GST authority) issued a show cause notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act for the tax period April 2020-March 2021. This SCN demanded 1,24,92,162/- (CGST, SGST, IGST) along with interest and penalty. The grounds included under-declared net tax due to non-reconciliation of turnovers and e-way bill information, as well as an excess claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC).
- Search and Summons by Central Authority: Subsequently, on January 16, 2025, officers of Respondent No. 1 (Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate) conducted a search at the petitioner’s premises under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act. Electronic gadgets and documents were seized, and summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act were issued to four company directors, requiring them to produce documents. Another summons was issued on January 23, 2025, to a director for document production.
- Petitioner’s Challenge: On January 24, 2025, the petitioner informed Respondent No. 1 that Respondent No. 2 was already investigating the company on similar grounds, including ITC claimed from cancelled suppliers, and requested the release of seized items.
Aggrieved by the summons from Respondent No. 1, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi, arguing that Respondent No. 1 lacked jurisdiction due to Respondent No. 2’s prior investigation on the same issue, invoking Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.
