Facts of the Case

M/s Vasavi Telecommunications, a proprietary electrical-goods dealer registered under GSTIN 29ATSPA4757D1ZG, was subjected to two separate adjudications for the tax period 2019-20: one by the Commercial Tax Officer (CTO), LGSTO-152 (order dated 23.08.2024, Annexure-C, with consequential demand in Form GST DRC-07 of the same date, Annexure-D) and another by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (ACCT), LGSTO-152, under Section 73(9) (order dated 28.08.2024, Annexure-E, with DRC-07 of the same date, Annexure-F). The CTO's order dealt with short-declared tax as per GSTR-3B compared to GSTR-1, while the ACCT's order dealt with short-declared tax as per GSTR-9 compared to GSTR-3B — demands the petitioner said overlapped for the same period. The petitioner approached the Karnataka High Court challenging the ACCT's order and its consequential demand.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether two separate adjudication orders passed by different authorities of the same GST office for the same tax period, on overlapping heads of tax short-payment, can both survive.
  2. The effect of the department's own rectification order dated 08.10.2025 (passed under Section 161 read with Section 73(9)) acknowledging the overlap.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The ACCT's order (Annexure-E/F) duplicated the CTO's earlier order (Annexure-C/D) for the very same 2019-20 tax period and therefore deserved to be quashed.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The AGA for the State produced a rectification order dated 08.10.2025 passed by the ACCT, LGSTO-152, under Section 161 read with Section 73(9), acknowledging that the IGST component in its earlier order overlapped with the amount already covered by the CTO's order and rectifying its demand to remove that overlap.

Court Order / Findings

  • Noting the rectification of 08.10.2025 passed during the pendency of the petition — which confirmed the duplication the petitioner complained of — the Court held that the impugned order dated 28.08.2024 (Annexure-E) and the consequential demand dated 28.08.2024 (Annexure-F) deserved to be quashed.
  • The petition was partly allowed and both instruments were quashed insofar as the petitioner was concerned.

Important Clarification

  • Where two separate GST authorities pass adjudication orders against the same taxpayer for the same tax period on what turn out to be overlapping heads of short-payment, and the department's own subsequent rectification confirms the overlap, the later/duplicate order and its consequential demand are liable to be quashed rather than requiring the assessee to contest both simultaneously.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73 of the KGST/CGST Act, 2017 — determination of tax not paid for reasons other than fraud.
  • Section 161 of the CGST Act, 2017 — rectification of errors apparent on the face of the record.
  • Form GST DRC-07 — summary of the adjudication order.

Decision – In Favour of

Assessee — the duplicate order and demand were quashed.

Case Details

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; WP No. 20863 of 2025 (T-RES); Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar; Date: 9th 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.