Duplication of Assessment Orders: identical GST discrepancies cannot be taxed twice and orders may be quashed with remand.

Administrative orders that impose liability twice for the same discrepancy between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B constitute impermissible duplication resulting in double taxation and are liable to be quashed; the earlier assessment order was therefore set aside. An assessment confirmed without affording the taxpayer a personal hearing where electronic service was effected but the taxpayer was unaware vitiates the order and warrants setting aside and remand for fresh consideration. The court directed conditional compliance for fresh consideration (payment of a portion of disputed tax, filing of reply, and grant of personal hearing) before re-assessment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the earlier assessment order dated 28.11.2025 and the subsequent order dated 08.12.2025, insofar as they pertain to the same discrepancy between Form GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B, result in duplication of proceedings and double taxation and are liable to be quashed; (ii) Whether the impugned order dated 08.12.2025 was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing because notices were uploaded on the GST portal and the order is liable to be set aside with directions for fresh consideration.

Issue (i): Whether two assessment orders covering the same discrepancy amount to duplication and double taxation and whether the earlier order must be quashed.

Analysis: The Court examined the fact that the 28.11.2025 order addressed only the discrepancy between Form GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B and that the 08.12.2025 order again quantified the same issue leading to two orders for the same taxable event. The Court treated the two orders as covering the identical issue and noted that such repetition produces overlapping liability and double taxation.

Conclusion: The earlier order dated 28.11.2025 is quashed on account of duplication of proceedings and resulting double taxation. The conclusion is in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the order dated 08.12.2025 was passed without personal hearing due to notices being uploaded on the GST portal and whether that order should be set aside and remanded for fresh consideration subject to conditions.

Analysis: The Court analysed the process of service via the GST portal and the petitioner's assertion that they were unaware of the show cause notice and were not furnished an original notice or afforded personal hearing. Having regard to the absence of an opportunity of personal hearing and the Court's view that the assessment confirmed proposals from the show cause notice without personal hearing, the Court considered remedial directions including conditional payment and remand for fresh hearing.

Conclusion: The impugned order dated 08.12.2025 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration after compliance with the Court's directions; this conclusion is in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The Court quashed the earlier order dated 28.11.2025 and set aside the subsequent order dated 08.12.2025, remanding the matter to the appropriate officer for fresh consideration after the petitioner pays 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks, files a reply within three weeks of payment, and is granted a personal hearing; the writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: Administrative orders resulting in duplication of liability for the same taxable discrepancy are unsustainable and must be quashed, and an assessment confirmed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing (where service was effected electronically and the party was unaware) vitiates the order and warrants setting aside and remand for fresh consideration subject to conditions laid down by the Court.

---