☐ Has the initiating authority (CGST or SGST / UTGST) been identified? ☐ Has the subject matter been identified specifically? ☐ Has check for parallel proceedings on same subject matter been done? ☐ If parallel proceedings, has sub-s.…
6
☐ Has the initiating authority (CGST or SGST / UTGST) been identified? ☐ Has the subject matter been identified specifically? ☐ Has check for parallel proceedings on same subject matter been done? ☐ If parallel proceedings, has sub-s.…
Section 6 cross-empowerment compliance — checklist (19 items)
Section 6 cross — empowerment compliance — checklist (19 items)
☐ Has the initiating authority (CGST or SGST / UTGST) been identified?
☐ Has the subject matter been identified specifically?
☐ Has check for parallel proceedings on same subject matter been done?
☐ If parallel proceedings, has sub-s. (2)(b) bar been invoked?
☐ Has operative Notification under sub-s. (1) been verified?
☐ For coordinated dual orders, has sub-s. (2)(a) discipline been observed?
☐ Has the intimation to State / UT jurisdictional officer been verified?
☐ For appellate matters, has sub-s. (3) Act-specific framework been applied?
☐ Has 9th GST Council 90:10 / 50:50 division been considered?
☐ Has coordination with parallel SGST / UTGST framework been examined?
☐ Has first-initiation documentary trail been built for any sub-s. (2)(b) challenge?
☐ Has Mohit Minerals constitutional framework been applied to sub-s. (1) Notification?
☐ Has Calcutta Discount Co. framework been considered for cross-empowered authority limits?
☐ Has Whirlpool framework been invoked for writ jurisdiction?
☐ Has Mafatlal procedural-fairness framework been observed?
☐ Has coordination with s. 5 powers analysis been done?
☐ Has Bharti Airtel substance-over-form framework been applied?
☐ Has audit-defensibility through cross-empowerment file been ensured?
☐ Has the file been reviewed for audit-defensibility?
Worked examples — five live scenarios
Example 1 — Parallel proceedings on same subject matter
Facts: SGST authority initiates audit on taxpayer's ITC for FY 2022-23 on 1-Jul-2024. CGST authority initiates parallel audit on the same ITC subject matter on 15-Aug-2024.
Analysis: Sub-s. (2)(b) bar applies. SGST first-initiated; CGST parallel proceeding on same subject matter is barred. Practitioner files Article 226 writ challenging CGST proceedings. SGST audit proceeds. Department's response — coordinated framework should have prevented; CGST authority should have verified before initiation.
Result: CGST proceedings barred. SGST proceedings prevail. Sub-s. (2)(b) discipline enforced.
Example 2 — Coordinated dual orders
Facts: CGST authority adjudicates ITC disallowance — Rs. 50 lakh CGST + Rs. 50 lakh SGST. Single order issued with both components.
Analysis: Sub-s. (2)(a) — CGST proper officer issues both CGST and SGST orders, with intimation to State jurisdictional officer. Dual-order discipline observed. Practitioner files appellate remedies — CGST component to CGST appellate; SGST component to State appellate.
Result: Dual-order discipline. Appellate remedies in respective Act-specific frameworks.
Example 3 — Parallel proceedings on distinct subject matter
Facts: CGST authority initiates scrutiny on supply classification for FY 2023-24. SGST authority simultaneously initiates audit on ITC claim for FY 2023-24.
Analysis: Subject-matter identity test. Classification vs ITC are distinct subject matters. Sub-s. (2)(b) bar does NOT apply. Both proceedings may continue. Coordinated engagement required from taxpayer.
Result: Distinct subject matters — both proceedings continue. Operational coordination required.
Example 4 — Appellate framework mismatch
Facts: CGST adjudication order. Practitioner attempts appeal under State appellate framework.
Analysis: Sub-s. (3) — CGST orders subject to CGST appellate framework only. State appellate is barred. Practitioner withdraws State filing; files CGST appellate under s. 107.
Result: Sub-s. (3) framework — Act-specific appellate. Practitioner re-files in correct framework.
Example 5 — Notification 39/2017-CT refund cross-empowerment
Facts: Taxpayer files refund application for Rs. 25 lakh CGST + Rs. 25 lakh SGST. SGST jurisdictional officer processes the entire application including CGST component.
Analysis: Notification 39/2017-CT authorises SGST officer as CGST proper officer for refund functions. Single application processed by single officer. Refund order covers both components with intimation. Sub-s. (2)(a) dual-order discipline observed.
Result: Cross-empowered single-officer framework. Operational efficiency achieved.
Planning and litigation strategy
Litigation defence
Cross-references