Facts of the Case

M/s. Karthikeya Exhibitors filed two connected writ petitions before the Telangana High Court, challenging multiple show cause notices and multiple orders passed for the same tax periods — April 2020 to March 2021 and April 2018 to March 2019 — under the CGST, TGST and IGST Acts. The petitioner contended that the impugned notices in Form DRC-01 and summary orders in Form GST DRC-07 lacked signatures, were issued without jurisdiction, and were void for non-compliance with Rule 142(1A) of the CGST/TGST Rules, 2017. Both writ petitions were tagged together on account of the similarity of grievance regarding issuance of multiple notices/orders for the same tax period.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the issuance of multiple show cause notices and multiple orders for the same tax period, allegedly without signature and in violation of Rule 142(1A), vitiated the proceedings.
  2. Whether such grievances were appropriately addressed through the rectification mechanism under Section 161 of the TGST Act rather than by quashing the proceedings in writ jurisdiction.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The impugned notices and summary orders, issued in Forms DRC-01 and DRC-07 for overlapping tax periods, were without signatures, without jurisdiction, and contrary to the CGST/TGST Acts and Rule 142(1A).
  • The proceedings were void for want of compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements governing issuance of consolidated notices for a single tax period.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The learned Advocate General, in the batch matter being followed, submitted that the errors of issuing multiple notices/orders for the same tax period were amenable to rectification by the proper officer under the second proviso to Section 161 of the TGST Act, under which the ordinary six-month limitation for rectification would not apply.
  • The Department undertook that affected taxpayers would be intimated of the rectification exercise and given an opportunity to furnish submissions.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court found the issues squarely covered by its earlier common order dated 15.10.2025 in W.P.No.20731 of 2025 and batch cases, where it accepted the Department's stand that such errors were amenable to rectification under Section 161 of the TGST Act, with a circular dated 14.10.2025 uploaded on the GST Portal to facilitate the process.
  • Following the said common order, the Court disposed of the present writ petitions in similar terms, directing the concerned proper officers to undertake rectification of the impugned notices/orders within a reasonable time, with due intimation to the petitioner.
  • It was clarified that if any grievance was not amenable to rectification under Section 161, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum, with any refund arising from rectification to be dealt with as per law.

Important Clarification

  • Errors arising from issuance of multiple/duplicate show cause notices or assessment orders for the same tax period fall within the rectification power under the second proviso to Section 161 of the TGST/CGST Act (not subject to the ordinary six-month limitation); taxpayers facing such duplication should first pursue rectification before the proper officer rather than approach the writ court for outright quashing.

Sections Involved

  • Section 161 of the TGST/CGST Act, 2017 — empowers the proper officer to rectify errors apparent on the face of the record.
  • Rule 142(1A) of the CGST/TGST Rules, 2017 — governs communication of tax ascertained as payable prior to issuance of a show cause notice.

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of with directions, substantially in favour of the assessee — the Department was directed to carry out rectification of the duplicate notices/orders with due intimation to the petitioner.

Case Details

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad; W.P.Nos.39246 and 39247 of 2025; Coram: Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin; Order dated 22.12.2025.

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.