Cross empowerment under Section 6 and jurisdictional objections
Whether a state officer can issue a notice under the central enactment, and vice versa, has decided entire batches of cases.
Section 6(1) of the CGST Act provides that officers appointed under the State or Union territory Acts are authorised to be proper officers for the purposes of the CGST Act, subject to conditions notified on the recommendation of the Council. Whether a notification specifying those conditions is a pre condition to the exercise of cross empowered jurisdiction has been litigated, with several High Courts holding that in the absence of the required notification a state officer cannot issue a notice under the IGST or CGST Act in the specified situations. The question has travelled further, and the current status must be verified before relying on it.
The argument
Section 6(1) authorises cross empowerment subject to such conditions as the Government shall, on the recommendations of the Council, by notification specify.
Taxpayers have argued that in the absence of a notification specifying those conditions, the authorisation is incomplete, and a notice issued by an officer of the other administration is without jurisdiction.
The Madras and Kerala High Courts, among others, have accepted variants of this argument in the context of IGST refunds and demands, and other courts have taken a different view or read the administrative allocation of taxpayers as sufficient.
The point is jurisdictional, which means it is not waived by participation, but it must still be pleaded at the earliest opportunity to carry weight.
How to use it
Identify the administration to which the taxpayer is allotted, and the administration whose officer issued the notice. The objection arises only where they differ or where the enactment invoked is the other administration's.
Plead the absence of the notification specifying conditions, and the specific provision under which the notice is issued.
Plead it as a preliminary objection in the reply, and again as a ground of appeal.
Track the appellate position; where the question is pending before the Supreme Court, an interim protection may be available and the ground must be preserved.
The practical calculation
The objection is asymmetric in value. If it succeeds, the entire proceeding falls. If it fails, nothing has been lost by raising it.
It should not displace the merits. A reply that takes only the jurisdictional point invites an order recording that the substance was unanswered.
Where the objection is available, it is also worth examining whether the same period is under examination by the correct administration, which raises the Section 6(2)(b) bar as well.
For refunds, the same question arises in reverse where a refund is sanctioned or rejected by an officer of the other administration.
What to do on Monday
Record which administration each registration is allotted to, and check it against the officer issuing any notice.
Plead the cross empowerment objection as a preliminary ground in the first reply.
Preserve the ground in appeal while arguing the merits fully.
Track the appellate position and seek interim protection where available.
This page states the general position. A reader with a specific question on their own facts may write to the GST practice at AMLEGALS.
Write to the GST practiceQuestions we are asked on this
Can a state officer issue a notice under the CGST Act?
Section 6(1) contemplates cross empowerment subject to notified conditions. Whether the absence of that notification defeats jurisdiction is the litigated question; verify the current position.
Is the objection waived if we participate?
A jurisdictional objection is not waived, but raising it late reduces its practical weight. Plead it in the first reply.
Does it apply to IGST demands?
Much of the litigation has concerned IGST, including refunds. Identify the enactment invoked in your notice.
Should we rely only on this ground?
No. Plead the merits fully; a jurisdictional ground alone leaves the substance unanswered.
What if the question is pending in the Supreme Court?
Preserve the ground and consider interim protection. Do not abandon it because the outcome is uncertain.
In this cluster
- GST enforcement: search, seizure, summons, arrest and attachment in one map
- Section 70 summons: your rights, your obligations and your record
- Section 67 search and seizure: the conditions that must be satisfied
- Section 69 arrest under GST: when it is legal and when it is not
- Section 132 prosecution: offences, thresholds and compounding
- Radha Krishan Industries: provisional attachment is draconian, and the conditions are strict
- Radhika Agarwal: the Supreme Court's 2025 safeguards on GST and customs arrest
- Bank account attachment: getting it lifted fast
- Anticipatory bail and regular bail in GST offences
- Statements recorded during investigation and their evidentiary value
GST Insights is published by AMLEGALS for general information. Law stated as on 3 September 2026. Not advice on any particular set of facts; not an advertisement or a solicitation under Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules. Readers with a question on their own facts may write to the GST practice of their own accord.