Facts of the Case

Tvl.Velmurugan Marketing, represented by its proprietor K. Satheesh (GSTIN 33BPXPS4251J1Z9), challenged two separate assessment orders in Form GST DRC-07 for the same assessment year, 2018-19: one bearing Reference No. ZD330424067262N dated 08.04.2024, and another bearing Reference No. ZD3304241298759 dated 17.04.2024. Curiously, both orders were passed within days of each other and by different assessing officers, and both were passed after the petitioner's GST registration had already been cancelled on 08.06.2022 — both being ex-parte in nature.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether two separate assessment orders, purportedly for different defects, could both be sustained for the identical assessment year when passed within ten days of each other by different officers.
  2. Whether the department's failure to address the petitioner's contention — that the defect flagged in the second order had already been pointed out and the tax paid — vitiates both orders.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner contended that the defect underlying the second assessment order had already been pointed out earlier and the corresponding tax had already been paid, making the second order for the same year both duplicative and unjustified.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The respondent's stand was that the second assessment order was passed for a different defect than the first, seeking to justify the existence of two separate orders for the same assessment year.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court observed it could not understand how, within a period of less than ten days, one more assessment order could have been passed for the very same assessment year, especially by different assessing officers.
  • It noted that the respondent's explanation — that the second order addressed a different defect — and the petitioner's contention that the defect was already resolved, had simply not been examined by the respondent.
  • Taking into account these substantial contentions and that both orders were ex-parte, the Court set aside both impugned orders and remitted the matter, directing the respondent to issue a fresh notice and pass a single consolidated order for the assessment year in question.
  • The Court expressly clarified it had not gone into the merits of the underlying tax dispute.

Important Clarification

  • Passing multiple, piecemeal assessment orders for the identical tax period through different officers — without addressing the assessee's contention that an earlier-flagged defect stood resolved — is procedurally impermissible; a single, consolidated notice and order for each assessment year is the correct approach, and courts will set aside duplicative ex-parte orders on this ground alone.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73/74, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – assessment for a given tax period, requiring a single, coherent proceeding.
  • Form GST DRC-07, CGST Rules, 2017 – summary of the demand order.

Decision – In Favour of

Allowed; entirely in favour of the Assessee, with both duplicate ex-parte orders set aside and a single fresh notice/order directed.

Case Details

  • Court: Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court
  • Case No.: W.P(MD)Nos.31209 & 31210 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.24432 & 24433 of 2025
  • Coram: Justice G.R. Swaminathan
  • Date of Order: 03.11.2025

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.