The Madras High Court Division Bench has set aside the Single Judge’s order which had quashed proceedings initiated by Central and State GST authorities on the ground that no notification for cross-empowerment had been issued under Section 6(1) of the CGST Act, holding that the purpose of the notification is only for imposing conditions on the power of cross-empowerment and that mere non-issuance does not render Section 6 otiose. The ruling by Justice Dr. Anita Sumanth and Justice S. Raveekumar in WA Nos. 2932/2026 and 21 companion appeals (State Tax Officers / Central Tax authorities v. various assessees, decided 24.09.2026) applies the Supreme Court’s judgment in Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST Delhi East (2025) and the CBIC’s Clarification F.No.CBEC-20/10/07/2019-GST dated 22.06.2020.
The court relied on the Supreme Court’s detailed consideration of Section 6 in Armour Security, particularly paragraph 46 where the clarification was noted: ‘notification would be required only if any conditions are to be imposed’ and ‘in the absence of any such conditions, the power of cross-empowerment under Section 6(1) is absolute and not conditional.’ The court also drew an analogy from the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Gannon Dunkerley (1993) 1 SCC 364 that the existence of a law imposing conditions cannot be regarded as a condition precedent for the exercise of the underlying power. All 21 writ appeals were allowed by way of remand for disposal in light of the Armour Security conclusions and guidelines, with four weeks granted for filing counters. The Kerala HC’s Division Bench in Pinnacle Vehicles, which had differed from the same Single Judge’s reasoning, was noted.
- 2026-juristway.com-2716-HC(Madras)-GST | High Court of Madras | WA Nos. 2932/2026 and batch | 24.09.2026
