Final appellate orders bar fresh GST notices on the same cause of action; COVID-19 interest relief required recomputation.

Fresh show-cause notices for the same tax period and cause of action are impermissible once the earlier appellate order has attained finality under the GST framework, and a de novo proceeding cannot be used to reopen concluded adjudication. The text also states that interest for March 2020 had to be recalculated under the COVID-19 relaxation notifications, because registered persons above the stated turnover threshold were subject to nil interest for the first 15 days of delay and 9% thereafter, rather than the original 18% rate. The impugned notices were therefore set aside, while any surviving liability was confined to the revised interest computation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether fresh show-cause notices could be issued for the same tax period and same cause of action after the first appellate order had attained finality; (ii) Whether the interest demand for March 2020 required recalculation in view of the COVID-19 relaxation notifications.

Issue (i): Whether fresh show-cause notices could be issued for the same tax period and same cause of action after the first appellate order had attained finality.

Analysis: The first appellate order, having not been challenged under the statutory appellate or revisional remedies, attained finality under Section 107(16) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Once the earlier adjudication stood concluded, the same cause of action could not be reopened by initiating a fresh proceeding under Section 73 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The absence of any power of remand in Section 107(11) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 also meant that the department could not indirectly do what it could not do directly by commencing a de novo proceeding on the same issue.

Conclusion: The fresh show-cause notices for the already concluded period were without jurisdiction and not permissible.

Issue (ii): Whether the interest demand for March 2020 required recalculation in view of the COVID-19 relaxation notifications.

Analysis: For the period of February 2020 to April 2020, the applicable notifications reduced the rate of interest for delayed filing in respect of registered persons having turnover above Rs. 5 crore to nil for the first 15 days of delay and 9% thereafter. Since the petitioner's turnover exceeded that threshold, the demand for March 2020 had to be worked out on the basis of the relaxed rate and not at the original rate of 18%.

Conclusion: The March 2020 interest was liable to be recomputed at the reduced rate and not at the higher rate demanded in the notice.

Final Conclusion: The impugned notices were set aside, while the liability for March 2020 survived only to the limited extent of the revised interest calculation under the relaxation notifications.

Ratio Decidendi: Once an appellate order attains finality and is not lawfully challenged, the same cause of action cannot be revived through a fresh notice or de novo proceeding; any surviving tax consequence must be assessed only in accordance with the applicable statutory concession or notification.

---