https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784626 The dominant issue was whether overlapping GST demands, raised pursuant to a DRC-01 SCN and confirmed through separate orders, warranted interference. The HC held that, to prevent duplication and ensure a unified adjudication, the matter should be reconsidered through a consolidated order on merits by the proper officer; consequently, the impugned order was set aside to that extent and the proceedings were remitted subject to the taxpayer depositing an additional 25% of the disputed tax in cash and clearing the unpaid balance of the earlier confirmed demand within 30 days, with any amount already paid to be adjusted after verification. en-us Fri, 19 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Jan 2026 08:22:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784626 The dominant issue was whether overlapping GST demands, raised pursuant to a DRC-01 SCN and confirmed through separate orders, warranted interference. The HC held that, to prevent duplication and ensure a unified adjudication, the matter should be reconsidered through a consolidated order on merits by the proper officer; consequently, the impugned order was set aside to that extent and the proceedings were remitted subject to the taxpayer depositing an additional 25% of the disputed tax in cash and clearing the unpaid balance of the earlier confirmed demand within 30 days, with any amount already paid to be adjusted after verification. Case-Laws GST Fri, 19 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784626