Section 6 of CGST Act: Authorisation of State Tax or Union Territory Tax Officers as Proper Officers
Updated: 15 September 2026 | Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 6 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 deals with cross-empowerment between Central GST and State or Union Territory GST administrations. It permits officers appointed under the State GST Act or Union Territory GST Act to function as proper officers under the CGST Act, subject to notified conditions, while restricting duplicative adjudicatory proceedings on the same subject matter.
Section 6 - Statutory Provision
The following is the operative text of Section 6 of the CGST Act:
6. Authorisation of officers of State tax or Union territory tax as proper officer in certain circumstances.
(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of this Act, the officers appointed under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act are authorised to be the proper officers for the purposes of this Act, subject to such conditions as the Government shall, on the recommendations of the Council, by notification, specify.
(2) Subject to the conditions specified in the notification issued under sub-section (1),--
(a) where any proper officer issues an order under this Act, he shall also issue an order under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, as authorised by the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, as the case may be, under intimation to the jurisdictional officer of State tax or Union territory tax;
(b) where a proper officer under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act has initiated any proceedings on a subject matter, no proceedings shall be initiated by the proper officer under this Act on the same subject matter.
(3) Any proceedings for rectification, appeal and revision, wherever applicable, of any order passed by an officer appointed under this Act shall not lie before an officer appointed under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act.
Official text: India Code - Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and CBIC - CGST Act.
Meaning and Purpose of Section 6
GST is administered through both Central and State or Union Territory tax authorities. Section 6 provides the statutory framework for cross-empowerment so that an authorised State or Union Territory tax officer may act as a proper officer for functions under the CGST Act, subject to the conditions prescribed by the Government on the recommendations of the GST Council.
The provision also protects taxpayers against overlapping adjudication. Section 6(2)(b) prevents a Central proper officer from initiating proceedings on the same subject matter where a proper officer under the State GST Act or Union Territory GST Act has already initiated proceedings. Equivalent provisions in State and Union Territory GST laws operate in the corresponding direction.
What is a "Proper Officer" under the CGST Act?
Section 2(91) of the CGST Act defines a proper officer, in relation to any function to be performed under the Act, as the Commissioner or an officer of central tax who is assigned that function by the Commissioner in the Board. The expression is function-specific: an officer must have the relevant statutory function assigned to him or her.
CBIC has issued circulars assigning proper-officer functions to different ranks of Central tax officers. See, for example, Circular No. 1/1/2017-GST dated 26 June 2017 and the CBIC GST Circulars page.
Section 6(2)(b): Bar on Parallel Proceedings
The words "initiated any proceedings" and "same subject matter" are important. The statutory bar is aimed at preventing Central and State or Union Territory GST authorities from conducting parallel adjudicatory proceedings concerning the same dispute.
| Issue | Current legal position |
|---|---|
| Does a summons itself amount to initiation of proceedings? | No. The Supreme Court has held that evidence-gathering steps such as summons, search or seizure do not by themselves constitute initiation of adjudicatory proceedings for Section 6(2)(b). |
| When are proceedings treated as initiated? | For the purpose of Section 6(2)(b), formal adjudicatory proceedings commence with issuance of a show cause notice. |
| What is the "same subject matter"? | The focus is on the tax liability, deficiency or obligation arising from a particular contravention that the authority seeks to assess or recover. |
| Can intelligence-based enforcement be started by either administration? | Yes, but parallel adjudicatory proceedings should not thereafter be initiated by the other administration on the same subject matter. |
Supreme Court: M/s Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST
In M/s Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate & Anr., 2025 INSC 982, decided on 14 August 2025, the Supreme Court authoritatively explained Section 6(2)(b).
The Court held, among other things, that the statutory bar concerns initiation of proceedings on the same subject matter; investigative or evidence-gathering measures such as summons, search and seizure do not themselves amount to such initiation. Formal adjudicatory proceedings are treated as commencing through a show cause notice. The Court also explained that where two proceedings seek to assess or recover an identical or partly overlapping liability, deficiency or obligation arising from the same contravention, Section 6(2)(b) is attracted.
Practical Effect of Section 6
1. Cross-empowerment
State and Union Territory GST officers may perform functions as proper officers under the CGST Act where the statutory and notified conditions permit. This supports coordinated administration of the dual GST structure.
2. One adjudicatory track for the same dispute
Once adjudicatory proceedings have been formally initiated by one competent GST administration on a particular subject matter, the other administration should not commence parallel proceedings seeking to determine the same or overlapping liability arising from the same contravention.
3. Investigation is distinct from adjudication
A summons, search, seizure or other evidence-gathering action does not automatically trigger the Section 6(2)(b) bar. Whether a later proceeding is barred depends on the nature of the earlier action and whether the subject matter of the adjudicatory proceedings is the same.
4. Appeals, rectification and revision
Under Section 6(3), rectification, appeal or revision of an order passed by an officer appointed under the CGST Act does not lie before an officer appointed under the State GST Act or Union Territory GST Act. The statutory appellate and revisional channel applicable to the order must be followed.
Related CGST Act Provisions
Section 3 - Officers under the CGST Act | Section 4 - Appointment of officers | Section 5 - Powers of officers | Section 7 - Scope of supply
Frequently Asked Questions
Can Central and State GST authorities both investigate a taxpayer?
Investigative steps are not automatically barred merely because the other administration has taken an investigative step. However, Section 6(2)(b), as interpreted by the Supreme Court, restricts parallel adjudicatory proceedings on the same subject matter.
Does a GST summons under Section 70 amount to proceedings under Section 6(2)(b)?
No. The Supreme Court in Armour Security held that a summons is an evidence-gathering or inquiry measure and does not by itself amount to formal initiation of proceedings for Section 6(2)(b).
What should be compared to determine whether the subject matter is the same?
The relevant comparison includes the alleged contravention, tax liability or deficiency, underlying facts, demand or relief sought, and the extent of any overlap between the proceedings.