Section 6(2)(b) Bars Parallel GST Proceedings Only When They Concern the Same Subject Matter.

The petitioner challenged a demand-cum-show-cause notice and an Order-in-Original confirming recovery of ₹47,93,104 in allegedly inadmissible ITC, with interest and penalty, under Section 74 of the CGST Act.

The Central GST proceedings concerned alleged ITC claimed on invoices without actual receipt of goods from M/s ASA Nand Nathu Ram.

The petitioner contended that State GST authorities had already initiated proceedings concerning ITC from the same supplier for several financial years, and raised objections including breach of Section 6(2)(b), denial of an effective hearing, and a variance between the notice and the order.

The High Court considered the challenge notwithstanding the statutory appellate remedy available against the Order-in-Original.

1. Whether the Central GST proceedings were barred by Section 6(2)(b) because of earlier proceedings initiated by State GST authorities concerning ITC from the same supplier.

2. Whether the alleged denial of an effective personal hearing or other natural-justice breaches warranted writ interference despite the statutory appellate remedy.

3. Whether the alleged variance between the show-cause notice and the Order-in-Original, or the other challenges to the adjudication, justified setting aside the order under Article 226.

Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act bars a second proceeding by another GST authority where it concerns the same subject matter; identity of the assessee, supplier, or broad factual background alone does not establish that identity, which must be assessed by reference to the tax period, transactions, invoices, ITC, allegations, and liability in each proceeding.

Under Section 75(4), an opportunity of hearing is contemplated where requested in writing or where an adverse decision is proposed.

Article 226 jurisdiction may be declined where an efficacious statutory appeal is available and the asserted jurisdictional or natural-justice defect is not established on the record; disputed merits and evidentiary questions are ordinarily for the appellate authority.

Sections 16(2)(b) and 16(2)(c), Section 50, and Section 74 concern ITC eligibility, interest, and recovery in cases involving fraud or suppression, but the Court left their application to the appeal.

The Court held that the common supplier did not, by itself, prove that the State and Central proceedings concerned the same subject matter.

The respective notices, periods, invoices, and ITC liabilities had to be compared; that factual inquiry was better suited to the appellate authority, particularly as the State proceedings involved different years and stages.

The Order-in-Original expressly relied on non-receipt of goods under Section 16(2)(b), so the allegation that it rested entirely on a new ground was not apparent from the order; the sufficiency of the evidence and the Section 74 findings remained matters for appeal.

Although the petitioner disputed the hearing opportunities and the order contained an apparent inconsistency in a recorded hearing date, the order stated that opportunities had been granted; the underlying record required verification and did not establish an undisputed natural-justice breach warranting writ relief.

The remaining objections—including consideration of the reply, limitation, clubbing of financial years, and the merits of the ITC demand—were also appropriate for appellate examination.

It expressed no final opinion on the merits, including whether Section 6(2)(b) barred the proceedings for any particular period or transaction, and left all contentions open for independent consideration by the competent appellate authority.