Duplication of Assessment Proceedings for Same Period Not Allowed Under Tax Law, Differential Amount Can Be Included Later

The HC allowed the petition challenging the impugned assessment order, holding that duplication of assessment proceedings for the same period is not permissible under the enactment. The petitioner had already undergone an assessment for the same period by the State Tax Officer. The court permitted the respondents to initiate appropriate proceedings to include any differential amount within the earlier assessment if allowed by law.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether multiple assessment orders for the same tax period under different sections of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, result in duplication of proceedings.Whether an assessment order passed under Section 73 can be sustained after an earlier order for the same period was passed under Section 74.The scope and permissibility of initiating fresh proceedings or including differential amounts in existing assessment proceedings under the GST enactments.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The Court held that "there is no scope for duplication of assessment proceedings under the Scheme of the enactment," thereby disallowing multiple assessments for the same tax period under different sections.The impugned assessment order under Section 73 was quashed as it duplicated the earlier order passed under Section 74 for the same period.Liberty was granted to the tax authorities to "initiate appropriate proceedings to include the differential amount in the earlier proceedings if the provisions permit," emphasizing procedural propriety and avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the statutory framework of the respective Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, particularly Sections 73 and 74, which govern assessment procedures for tax periods.The decision reflects an interpretation aimed at preventing multiplicity and duplication of assessment proceedings for the same tax period, consistent with the principles of natural justice and statutory scheme.No dissenting or concurring opinions were noted; the judgment reinforces the doctrine that assessment under GST must be singular and consolidated unless otherwise expressly provided.

---