2025 (6) TMI 1786 - HC - GST

GST orders for same period quashed due to procedural overlap and double jeopardy concerns under Rule 142

The Madras HC disposed of a writ petition challenging a GST order dated 27.08.2024 for tax period 2019-20. The petitioner argued that an earlier order ... Challenge to order passed u/s 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017 - impugned order has resulted in double jeo pardi - HELD THAT:- It is noticed that Form GST DRC 05 is issued under Rule 142(3) of the respective Rules for intimation of conclusion of proceedings. The order that has to be passed in pursuant to the Show Cause Notice in DRC 01 is normally in GST DRC 07. It appears to be the same mistake in the order that was passed earlier on 04.10.2023 in GST DRC 05. In any event, the fact of the matter is that the impugned order has been passed on 27.08.2024, without the petitioner participating in the adjudication proceedings initiated vide DRC 01, dated 20.12.2023. It appears to be some overlap which needs to be looked into. Hence, the above impugned orders are quashed and the case is remitted back to the first respondent to pass fresh orders on merit and in accordance with law within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off. The Madras High Court, through Justice C. Saravanan, disposed of the Writ Petition challenging the impugned order dated 27.08.2024 for the tax period 2019-20. The petitioner contended that an earlier order dated 04.10.2023 under GST DRC 05 (Section 74, TNGST Act, 2017) for the same period resulted in 'double jeopardy,' warranting quashing of the later order. The Court noted that GST DRC 05 is typically an intimation of conclusion under Rule 142(3), whereas the adjudication order following a Show Cause Notice (DRC 01) should be in GST DRC 07. The Court observed an apparent procedural overlap and that the impugned order was passed without the petitioner's participation in adjudication proceedings initiated on 20.12.2023. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned orders and remitted the matter to the first respondent to pass fresh orders 'on merit and in accordance with law' within 30 days. The petitioner may substantiate his case, and respondents must justify issuance of orders for the same period. The petition was disposed of with no costs.