Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Tvl. Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Sugars (P) Ltd. (GSTIN 33AACCD7684E1ZO), was earlier assessed by order dated 02.02.2024 for assessment year 2021-22 on the ground of belated filing of Form GSTR-3B, among other defects, and had rectified the defects. Despite this, the State Tax Officer, Nanguneri, issued a fresh assessment order dated 16.05.2025 in Form GST DRC-07 (Reference No. ZD330525168600J) for the very same assessment year and the very same defect. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court seeking to quash the second order as cryptic, duplicative, non-speaking, and without jurisdiction.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a second assessment order for the same assessment year, addressing the same defect that had already been the subject of an earlier assessment order and subsequent rectification, is legally sustainable.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The impugned order duplicated an assessment already concluded for the same year on the identical ground of belated GSTR-3B filing, which defect stood already rectified.
  • The order was cryptic and non-speaking, and passing two assessment orders for one assessment year and one defect was without jurisdiction.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Government Advocate did not seriously contest that the assessment pertained to the same year and defect already covered by the earlier order.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court held that for a given assessment year and a specific defect, only one assessment order can be passed, and the case on hand was a clear instance of duplication.
  • On this short ground alone, the impugned order dated 16.05.2025 was quashed and the writ petition allowed without costs.
  • The ratio is that once a defect for an assessment year has been assessed and addressed, the department cannot issue a second, duplicate assessment order for the same year and defect.

Important Clarification

  • Multiplicity of assessment orders for an identical assessment year and an identical defect is impermissible and renders the later order liable to be quashed on that ground alone, without going into other merits.
  • Where a defect has already been rectified pursuant to an earlier proceeding, a fresh notice/order raising the same defect for the same period is redundant and unsustainable.

Sections Involved

  • Form GSTR-3B – monthly self-assessed summary return under the CGST Rules, 2017, belated filing of which triggered the original defect.
  • Form GST DRC-07 – summary of the order creating demand of tax, interest and penalty under Rule 142 of the CGST Rules, 2017.
  • Article 226, Constitution of India – writ jurisdiction invoked to challenge the duplicate assessment order.

Decision – In Favour of

The decision is in favour of the assessee. The writ petition was allowed and the duplicate assessment order was quashed without costs.

Case Details

Court: Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court — Case No.: W.P(MD) No.30074 of 2025 — Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.R. Swaminathan — Date of Order: 24 October 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.