Duplicate tax demand from overlapping adjudication cannot stand where the same transactions are assessed twice.

Duplicate tax adjudication on the same transactions was treated as unsustainable where a subsequent order and rectification order replicated an already existing demand and created overlapping liability. The note records that, once the respondent admitted the overlap, the impugned orders could not be maintained because they would subject the petitioner to duplicate demand on the same set of facts. The resulting effect was that the overlapping adjudication was set aside, while the earlier proceedings were left to continue independently on their own merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order in original and the rectification order, arising from the same transactions and resulting in an overlapping duplicate demand, were liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The petition under Article 226 challenged two orders passed on the same set of transactions. The record showed that the second show cause notice and the first notice had culminated in separate orders confirming the same tax demand. The respondent fairly ed that the impugned order in original was overlapping. In these circumstances, the duplicate and overlapping orders could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The impugned order in original and the rectification order were quashed in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded to the extent that the overlapping adjudication was set aside, while the pending appeal against the earlier order was left to proceed independently on its own merits.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudication order and consequential rectification order that duplicate an already existing demand on the same transactions cannot be sustained when the overlap is admitted and results in duplicate liability.

---