Parallel CGST proceedings are barred only for the same liability, facts, contravention, and assessment period.

Parallel proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act are barred only where they concern the same subject matter, meaning the same tax liability, facts, contravention, and assessment period. On the facts described, the two proceedings related to different financial years and different allegations, so Section 6(2)(b) did not apply. The challenge based on Section 75(4) and denial of personal hearing also failed because the order reflected consideration of the reply and no natural justice violation was shown. The writ petition was therefore not entertained, and the taxpayer was left to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the proceedings initiated under Section 74 of the CGST Act were barred by Section 6(2)(b) on the ground that prior proceedings under Section 73 had already been initiated for another financial year. (ii) Whether the impugned order was vitiated for non-compliance with Section 75(4) and denial of personal hearing.

Issue (i): Whether the proceedings initiated under Section 74 of the CGST Act were barred by Section 6(2)(b) on the ground that prior proceedings under Section 73 had already been initiated for another financial year.

Analysis: Section 6(2)(b) bars parallel proceedings only when they concern the same subject matter, meaning the same specific tax liability, the same set of facts, the same contravention, and the same assessment period. The two proceedings in question related to different financial years and were founded on different allegations: one concerned discrepancies in annual return declarations, while the other concerned wrongful availment of input tax credit on goods-less invoices from a non-existent entity. The proceedings therefore did not overlap in time, facts, or nature of infraction.

Conclusion: The bar under Section 6(2)(b) was not attracted, and the challenge failed on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned order was vitiated for non-compliance with Section 75(4) and denial of personal hearing.

Analysis: The impugned order showed due consideration of the reply filed by the petitioner, and the record did not support a finding of violation of natural justice. The Court also noted the availability of an efficacious alternative appellate remedy.

Conclusion: No violation of Section 75(4) was established, and this ground did not succeed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition did not disclose any legal infirmity in the impugned demand order, and the petitioner was left to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: The statutory bar on parallel proceedings applies only where the later proceeding concerns the same subject matter, comprising the same liability, facts, contravention, and assessment period; where those elements differ, proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 are not mutually barred.

---