The Delhi High Court has declined to interfere with a Central GST demand order against Liberty General Insurance Limited in a writ petition that raised — for the first time after the adverse adjudication order — the bar under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act against parallel proceedings by Central and State GST authorities on the same subject matter. The ruling, by Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Shail Jain in W.P.(C) 4526/2026 (decided 07.08.2026), contains a careful analysis of the conditions under which Section 6(2)(b) applies and the procedural consequences of raising such an objection belatedly.
The essential facts: State GST authorities had initiated proceedings against Liberty General Insurance for FY 2020-21 alleging excess ITC of Rs. 2.44 crore; those proceedings were dropped by order dated 22.02.2025. Meanwhile, the Central GST Anti-Evasion Branch had been conducting a broader investigation covering FY 2018-19 to FY 2023-24, resulting in an SCN dated 26.05.2025 alleging excess ITC of Rs. 4.80 crore. The petitioner did not raise the Section 6(2)(b) objection in its written reply to the Central SCN. After the OIO confirmed the Rs. 4.80 crore demand on 03.12.2025, the petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the proceedings primarily on Section 6(2)(b) grounds.
The court identified the central difficulty with the petitioner's position: the expression "same subject matter" in Section 6(2)(b) is not answered merely by the fact that both proceedings involved GST and ITC for FY 2020-21. The State proceedings concerned Rs. 2.44 crore of ITC for FY 2020-21 only; the Central proceedings covered Rs. 4.80 crore across six financial years. Whether the FY 2020-21 portion of the Central proceedings was "on the same subject matter" as the State proceedings requires comparison of the respective SCNs, the specific ITC transactions under scrutiny, the allegations, the computations and the material relied upon by each authority. This is precisely the kind of factual examination that requires access to the underlying record — and which the statutory Appellate Authority, not the writ court, is best placed to conduct.
The court also noted, without finally deciding the point, that the statutory bar under Section 6(2)(b) operates at the stage of initiation of proceedings and ought to be raised at the earliest opportunity. The petitioner had not raised the objection in its written reply to the Central SCN, participated fully in the adjudication including personal hearings, and only raised the Section 6(2)(b) ground after receiving an adverse OIO. While this does not permanently foreclose the objection, it bears on whether the writ court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction at this stage. The petitioner was relegated to the Section 107 appeal, with all contentions — including the Section 6(2)(b) bar, the Section 74 extended limitation period, and the interest questions — kept entirely open before the Appellate Authority, which was directed to consider them independently without being influenced by the High Court's observations.
- 2026-juristway.com-2233-HC(Delhi)-GST | High Court of Delhi | W.P.(C) 4526/2026 | 07.08.2026