Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/s. Shamaray Kalasappa Singe Contractor, a works-contract proprietary firm registered under the CGST/SGST Act, was served with two parallel proceedings for the same tax period 2019-20 — an order dated 22.01.2025 passed by Respondent No.1 and a show-cause notice dated 19.11.2024 followed by a second adjudication order dated 12.02.2025 passed by Respondent No.2 (Audit). The petitioner approached the Karnataka High Court, Kalaburagi Bench, seeking to quash both sets of proceedings as duplicative and resulting in conflicting decisions for the same period.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether issuance of two parallel show-cause notices and consequential adjudication orders by different officers for the identical tax period is legally sustainable.
  2. What relief is appropriate where such parallel proceedings have already culminated in orders, rather than being at the notice stage.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Two show-cause notices for the same period 2019-20 had resulted in conflicting adjudication orders, which was unsustainable, and both sets of proceedings should be quashed with a direction to reconsider the matter afresh.

Respondent's Arguments

  • There is no prohibition on different officers issuing show-cause notices, as the notices pertained to different and distinct causes of action which could not be clubbed and adjudicated together; the petitioner should instead be given liberty to seek rectification of the defects pointed out.

Court Order / Findings

  • Recording the AGA's submission that the petitioner could seek rectification of the defects in both orders, and the petitioner's counsel's acceptance that this would serve the purpose of the petition, the Court did not rule on whether the parallel notices were themselves without jurisdiction.
  • The Court remitted the matter to Respondents 1 and 2 to permit the petitioner to file applications seeking rectification of both orders within fifteen days, with any delay condoned given the time spent pursuing the writ petition, and directed that such applications be considered in accordance with law.
  • The first prayer (quashing the notices as being without jurisdiction) was not pressed once this rectification route was secured, with all grounds and contentions kept open for the petitioner.

Important Clarification

  • Where a taxpayer is subjected to more than one show-cause notice/adjudication order for the same tax period by different GST officers, courts may not always rule on the jurisdictional validity of parallel notices outright but can instead direct a rectification-based remedy, with delay condoned for time spent in litigation.
  • Keeping all grounds and contentions open in such a disposal preserves the taxpayer's ability to raise the same jurisdictional objections again if the rectification route does not resolve the conflict.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73, CGST/KGST Act, 2017 – provision under which the show-cause notices and orders were issued.
  • Section 161, CGST Act, 2017 – rectification of errors apparent on the face of the record, the route directed by the Court.

Decision – In Favour of

The decision is disposed of with directions, in part in favour of the assessee — no ruling was made on the jurisdictional validity of parallel notices, but the taxpayer secured a time-bound rectification remedy with delay condoned.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench — Case No.: Writ Petition No. 200712 of 2025 (T-RES) — Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.G.S. Kamal — Date of Order: 17 November 2025.

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.