Facts of the Case

The petitioner, NTC Infrastructure and Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (GSTIN 33AADCN8290K1Z4), assigned to the Central GST Authorities, challenged an order dated 27.01.2025 passed under Section 73 of the TNGST/CGST Act, 2017 along with the DRC-07 summary for Financial Year 2020-21. The petitioner contended that the State Tax Authorities had separately passed an order dated 10.12.2024 for the same assessment period, against which it had already filed an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner, and that the Central order therefore duplicated the demand, amounting to double jeopardy.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an order passed by the Central GST Authority against an assessee already assessed by the State Authority for the same period amounts to impermissible double jeopardy.
  2. Whether the petitioner's own conduct before the departmental authorities affected its entitlement to raise the double jeopardy plea before the High Court.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The impugned Central order amounted to duplication of the demand already raised by the State Authorities for the same assessment period, resulting in double jeopardy.
  • The order was, therefore, liable to be quashed as amounting to parallel proceedings on the same subject matter.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Senior Standing Counsel submitted that the proceedings were correctly initiated under Section 73 since the petitioner was assessed by the Central Authorities, and the petitioner's challenge to the State order was itself only on the ground of the State Authorities' lack of jurisdiction.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court held that since the petitioner's own appeal against the State order challenged only the State Authorities' jurisdiction (on the basis that the petitioner was assigned to Central Authorities), it could not simultaneously contend that even the Central Authority lacked jurisdiction to pass an order - the petitioner having acquiesced and never informed the Central respondent of the earlier State order.
  • The plea of double jeopardy was accordingly rejected, and the writ petition was held liable to be dismissed on that ground.
  • Nonetheless, liberty was granted to file a statutory appeal within 30 days against the impugned order, with recovery proceedings kept in abeyance for 45 days provided the petitioner also appeals the State order within 30 days along with a 10% pre-deposit.

Important Clarification

  • An assessee who challenges a State GST order purely on jurisdictional grounds (claiming assignment to Central Authorities) cannot later invoke double jeopardy to resist the Central Authority's own order on the same period, especially where it withheld information about the parallel State proceedings from the Central Authority.
  • Even where a double jeopardy plea fails, courts may still extend the statutory appellate window with abeyance of recovery, provided the assessee pursues both parallel appeals diligently with the applicable pre-deposit.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73, TNGST/CGST Act, 2017 - determination of tax not paid/short paid.
  • Section 6, CGST Act, 2017 - cross-empowerment of officers under Central and State GST law.

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of with directions, in part in favour of the department - double jeopardy plea dismissed, but appeal liberty and abeyance of recovery granted to the petitioner.

Case Details

  • Court: Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court
  • Case No.: W.P.(MD) No.20253 of 2025
  • Coram: Justice C. Saravanan
  • Date: 28th July, 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.