Case Law Details
Radiant Cash Management Services Ltd Vs Commercial Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court held that there is no statutory bar under Section 73 of the CGST Act or Rule 142 of the CGST Rules against issuing multiple Show Cause Notices (SCNs) for the same tax period, provided they relate to distinct discrepancies. In this case, an earlier SCN for FY 2021-22 was quashed, and a fresh SCN was later issued addressing different discrepancies such as unreconciled turnover, exempt supplies, and credit notes, with only minor overlap. The petitioner argued that multiple proceedings for the same period were impermissible and violated natural justice. The Court rejected this contention, observing that GST laws form a self-contained code and principles like res judicata or Order II Rule 2 CPC do not apply. It clarified that only overlapping demands on identical facts are barred. Since the impugned SCN dealt with separate issues, the writ petition was dismissed with liberty to reply.
Facts:
Radiant Cash Management Services Ltd., (“the Petitioner”) filed reply dated September 19, 2025 to intimation in Form GST ASMT-10 dated August 22, 2025 issued by Respondent for tax period 2021-22. They earlier received intimation in Form GST DRC-01A dated May 6, 2025 for same period, and before the Petitioner replied to the same, the Respondent issued SCN in Form GST DRC-01 dated May 29, 2025 which was challenged by the Petitioner in WP No. 23660 of 2025 wherein this Court set aside the summary of said SCN and granted liberty to reply to DRC-01A within 3 weeks of receipt of order.
The Commercial Tax Officer (“the Respondent”) issued intimation in Form GST DRC-01A dated May 6, 2025 proposing discrepancies for 2021-22 and issued SCN in Form GST DRC-01 dated May 29, 2025 before the Petitioner replied to DRC-01A. Further they issued impugned SCN in Form GST DRC-01 dated September 23, 2025 (“impugned SCN”) under section 73 of the CGST Act, proposing demands on unreconciled turnover of Rs.7,65,815, and other allegations totalling tax of Rs.1,95,06,563, interest and penalty u/s 73, despite prior quashed SCN and pending DRC-01A reply.
The Petitioner contended that impugned SCN dated September 23, 2025 u/s 73 is without jurisdiction as issued in violation of this Court’s order dated July 31, 2025 in WP No. 23660 of 2025 setting aside prior SCN dated May 29, 2025 and directing reply to DRC-01A. They further contend that the scheme of Section 73 and Rule 142 precludes multiple assessment proceedings for same tax period and impugned SCN is impermissible violating natural justice.
The Respondent contended that impugned SCN addresses distinct discrepancies from prior proceedings i.e., the prior DRC-01A/SCN focused on ITC mismatch, ineligible ITC etc., while impugned SCN raises unreconciled turnover per GSTR-9/GSTR-9C vs GSTR-3B, exempted supplies per GSTR-9 vs GSTR-1/GSTR-3B, credit notes mismatch per GSTR-9 Table 4.1, with only minor overlap on exempt supplies Rs.19,001 which can be dropped post-adjudication and that there is no statutory bar to multiple SCNs for same period on different issues.
Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner approached the Court by way of Writ Petition No. 49092 of 2025 under Article 226 of the Constitution praying certiorari to quash the SCN read with ASMT-10 dated August 22, 2025.
Issue:
Whether issuance of a fresh SCN in Form DRC-01 dated September 23, 2025 under Section 73 for tax period 2021-22 is without jurisdiction?
Held:
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in WP No. 49092 of 2025 and WMP Nos. 54840 & 54843 of 2025 held as under:
- Noted that, impugned SCN in Form DRC-01 dated September 23, 2025 issued under section 73 of the Act for 2021-22 pursuant to ASMT-10 dated August 22, 2025. The prior DRC-01A dated May 6, 2025 followed by SCN DRC-01 dated May 29, 2025 challenged in WP No. 23660/2025 and was set aside vide order dated July 31, 2025.
- Observed that, the comparison of quashed SCN dated May 29, 2025 with the impugned SCN shows only commonality in exempt supplies value Rs.19,001.
- Observed that, the prior quashed SCN and impugned proceedings address different issues except one item in comparison with the impugned SCN. Hence there is no scope to contend that there is multiple assessment proceedings in the same year as there is no statutory bar under section 73 or Rule 142 of the CGST Rules, 2017.
- Held that all the judgments relied on by the Petitioners are instances where overlapping SCNs for same facts/period by different officers were held to be impermissible. However, in the instant case, the factual matrix is different, as it involves different discrepancies/proceedings by same officer.
- Held that, principles of estoppel or res judicata do not strictly apply in tax laws and inapplicable as conspicuously absent in GST scheme.
- Held that, no bar to multiple SCNs for same period on separate issues and dismissed the writ petition.
Our Comments:
The Madras High Court reinforces that GST enactments constitute a complete code without statutory prohibition on multiple SCNs under section 73 or 74 for the same tax period, provided they pertain to distinct discrepancies, distinguishing Supreme Court in the case of Dancans Industries Ltd. v. CCE [(2006) 201 ELT 517 (SC)] limited to overlapping demands on identical facts by different officers leading to dual assessments which states that “there could not be two assessments for the same period”.
Relevant Provisions:
Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017
Determination of tax, pertaining to the period up to Financial Year 2023-24, not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised for any reason other than fraud or any willful-misstatement or suppression of facts.-
“(1) Where it appears to the proper officer that any tax has not been paid or short paid or erroneously refunded, or where input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilised for any reason, other than the reason of fraud or any wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax, he shall serve notice on the person chargeable with tax which has not been so paid or which has been so short paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been made, or who has wrongly availed or utilised input tax credit, requiring him to show cause as to why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice along with interest payable thereon under section 50 and a penalty leviable under the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder.
(2) The proper officer shall issue the notice under sub-section (1) at least three months prior to the time limit specified in sub-section (10) for issuance of order.
(3) Where a notice has been issued for any period under sub-section (1), the proper officer may serve a statement, containing the details of tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised for such periods other than those covered under sub-section (1), on the person chargeable with tax.
(4) The service of such statement shall be deemed to be service of notice on such person under sub-section (1), subject to the condition that the grounds relied upon for such tax periods other than those covered under sub-section (1) are the same as are mentioned in the earlier notice.
(5) The person chargeable with tax may, before service of notice under subsection (1) or, as the case may be, the statement under sub-section (3), pay the amount of tax along with interest payable thereon under section 50 on the basis of his own ascertainment of such tax or the tax as ascertained by the proper officer and inform the proper officer in writing of such payment.
(6) The proper officer, on receipt of such information, shall not serve any notice under sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, the statement under sub-section (3), in respect of the tax so paid or any penalty payable under the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder.
(7) Where the proper officer is of the opinion that the amount paid under sub-section (5) falls short of the amount actually payable, he shall proceed to issue the notice as provided for in sub-section (1) in respect of such amount which falls short of the amount actually payable.
(8) Where any person chargeable with tax under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) pays the said tax along with interest payable under section 50 within thirty days of issue of show cause notice, no penalty shall be payable and all proceedings in respect of the said notice shall be deemed to be concluded.
(9) The proper officer shall, after considering the representation, if any, made by person chargeable with tax, determine the amount of tax, interest and a penalty equivalent to ten per cent. of tax or ten thousand rupees, whichever is higher, due from such person and issue an order.
(10) The proper officer shall issue the order under sub-section (9) within three years from the due date for furnishing of annual return for the financial year to which the tax not paid or short paid or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised relates to or within three years from the date of erroneous refund.
(11) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (6) or sub-section (8), penalty under sub-section (9) shall be payable where any amount of self-assessed tax or any amount collected as tax has not been paid within a period of thirty days from the due date of payment of such tax.
(12) The provisions of this section shall be applicable for determination of tax pertaining to the period up to Financial Year 2023-24.”
Rule 142 of the CGST Rules, 2017
“142. Notice and order for demand of amounts payable under the Act. –
(1) The proper officer shall serve, along with the
(a) Notice issued under section 52 or section 73 or section 74 or section 74A or section 76 or section 122 or section 123 or section 124 or section 125 or section 127 or section 129 or section 130, a summary thereof electronically in FORM GST DRC-01 ,
(b) statement under sub-section (3) of section 73 or sub-section (3) of section 74 or sub-section (3) of section 74A, a summary thereof electronically in FORM GST DRC-02 , specifying therein the details of the amount payable.
(1A) The proper officer may, before service of Notice to the person chargeable with tax, interest and penalty, under sub-section (1) of Section 73 or sub-section (1) of Section 74 or sub-section (1) of section 74A, as the case may be, communicate the details of any tax, interest and penalty as ascertained by the said officer, in Part A of FORM GST DRC-01A.;
(2) Where, before the service of Notice or statement, the person chargeable with tax makes payment of the tax and interest in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 73 or clause (i) of sub-section (8) of section 74A, as the case may be, or tax, interest and penalty in accordance with the provisions of subsection (5) of section 74 or clause (i) of sub-section (9) of section 74A, or where any person makes payment of tax, interest, penalty or any other amount due in accordance with the provisions of the Act whether on his own ascertainment or, as communicated by the proper officer under sub-rule (1A), he shall inform the proper officer of such payment in FORM GST DRC-03 and an acknowledgement, in FORM GST DRC–04 shall be made available to the person through the common portal electronically.”
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The Petitioner is before this Court against the impugned Show Cause Notice in FORM GST DRC 01 dated 23.09.2025 issued under Section 73 of the respective GST Enactments by the Respondent for the tax period 2021-2022.
2. In the impugned Show Cause Notice in DRC 01 dated 23.09.2025, the timeline prescribed for personal hearing and due date to file reply are as follows:-
| S. No. | Description | Particulars |
| 1 | Date by which reply has to be submitted |
10.10.2025 |
| 2 | Date of personal hearing | 10.10.2025 |
| 3 | Time of personal hearing | 11.00 A.M. |
| 4 | Venue where personal hearing will be held |
Office of the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Pondy Bazaar Assessment Circle, No.46, Mylapore Taluk Office, Greenways Road, Chennai 600028. |
3. The impugned Show Cause Notice in DRC 01 dated 23.09.2025 is pursuant to an intimation in Form GST ASMT 10 dated 22.08.2025 issued by the Respondent for the tax period 2021-2022, wherein the Petitioner was called upon by the Respondent to file a reply on or before 21.09.2025. The Petitioner filed a Reply on 19.09.2025 to the aforesaid Intimation dated 22.08.2025.
4. The challenge to impugned Show Cause Notice in DRC 01 dated 23.09.2025 is primarily on the ground that earlier an Intimation in FORM GST DRC 01A dated 06.05.2025 was issued for the same tax period i.e., 2021-2022 to the Petitioner.
5. Before the Petitioner could respond to the aforesaid Intimation in FORM GST DRC 1A dated 06.05.2025, a Show Cause Notice in FORM GST DRC 01 dated 29.05.2025 was issued to the Petitioner for the same tax period viz., 2021-2022.
6. The Petitioner therefore approached this Court in W.P.No.23660 of 2025 against the said Show Cause Notice in FORM GST DRC 01 dated 29.05.2025. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court vide its Order dated 31.07.2025 ordered as under:-
“(i) The summary of show cause notice in DRC-01 dated 29.05.2025 is hereby set aside.
ii. The petitioner is granted liberty to file reply to DRC-01A dated 06.05.2025, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
iii. On filing of such reply/objection by the petitioner, the respondent shall consider the same and provide an opportunity of personal hearing and thereafter, decide the matter on merits and in accordance with law.”
7. It is the case of the Petitioner that the certified copy of the order dated 31.07.2025 in W.P.No.23660 of 2025 was received by the Petitioner only on 28.10.2025 and a Reply to Intimation in FORM GST DRC 1A dated 06.05.2025 was filed only on 09.12.2025. However, during the interregnum, the impugned Show Cause Notice in DRC 01 has been issued on 23.09.2025. Therefore, the present Writ Petition has been filed on 23.11.2025 on the ground that the impugned Show Cause Notice in DRC 01 dated 23.09.2025 was without jurisdiction.
8. It is submitted that the impugned Show Cause Notice in DRC 01 dated 23.09.2025 could not have been issued in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and in violation of the order dated 31.07.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.23660 of 2025.
9. On comparing the content of the Show Cause Notice in FORM GST DRC 01 dated 29.05.2025 which preceded intimation in Form GST ASMT 10 dated 22.08.2025, which was quashed by this Writ Court vide order dated 31.07.2025 in W.P.No.23660 of 2025 with the impugned Show Cause Notice in FORM GST DRC 01 dated 23.09.2025 in the present Writ Petition, it is noticed that only in respect of one of the item, namely the value of outward supplies for a sum of Rs.19,001/-, there is commonality.
10. The demand/proposals in the Intimation in FORM GST DRC 01A dated 06.05.2025 which preceded the Show Cause Notice in FORM GST DRC 01 dated 29.05.2025 for the tax period 2021-2022 which was quashed by this Writ Court vide order dated 31.07.2025 in W.P.No.23660 of 2025 were under the following heads namely;
“(i) Excess claim of ITC availed w.r.t GSTR-2A
ii. ITC to be reversed on non-business transactions & exempt supplies
iii. Claim of Ineligible ITC-Sec 17(5)
iv. Late fee calculation”
11. Serial No.2 of the Intimation in FORM GST DRC 01A dated 06.05.2025 issued for the tax period 2021-2022 which preceded Show Cause Notice in FORM GST DRC 01 dated 29.05.2025 is extracted below:-
ITC to be reversed on non-business transactions and exempt supplies:
| Sl. No. |
Description | Table No. in GSTR |
Value of outward | SGST | CGST | IGST | CESS | Total |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 1 | 5N | 755523
9 |
– | – | – | – | – | – |
| 2 | Exempt supplies | 5C+5D +5E+5 F | 19001 | – | – | – | – | – |
| 3 | Common
Input Tax |
4A of
GSTR – 3B |
– | 33648
082 |
336480
82 |
1199442
6 |
0 | 792905
90 |
| 4 | ITC to be
reversed (3*2/1) |
– | 841 | 841 | 300 | 0 | 1982 | |
| 5 | ITC reversed | 7C *
7D |
– | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 6 | Excess ITC
claimed |
– | 841 | 841 | 300 | 0 | 1982 |
12. In the impugned Show Cause Notice in FORM GST DRC 01 dated 23.09.2025 issued for the tax period 2021-2022, there are three discrepancies which have been pointed out against the Petitioner.
13. The extract of three heads of discrepancies raised in the impugned Show Cause Notice in FORM GST DRC 01 dated 23.09.2025 against the Petitioner for the tax period 2021-2022 are extracted below:-
Discrepancy No.1
| S.No. | Description | Turnover Reported |
| 1 | 2 | 3 |
| 1 | 5P. Annual turnover after adjustments as above | 756289730 |
| 2 | 5Q. Turnover as declared in Annual return
(GSTR-9) |
755523915 |
| 3 | Un-reconciled turnover (1-2) | 765815 |
| 4 | 7E. Taxable turnover as per adjustments above | 756270729 |
| 5 | 7F. Taxable turnover as per liability declared in Annual return (GSTR-9) | 755504914 |
| 6 | Un-reconciled turnover (4-5) | 765815 |
Discrepancy No.2
Exempted/Nil rated/Non-GST supplies:
| S.No. | Description | Turnover Reported |
| 1 | 2 | 3 |
| 1 | Table 5 of GSTR-9 (5D+5E+5F) | 19001.00 |
| 2 | Table 7 of GSTR-9C (7B) | 19001 |
| 3 | Table 8 of GSTR-1 | 19001.00 |
| 4 | Table 3.1 of GSTR-3B (3.1(c) + 3.1(e)) | 19001.00 |
Discrepancy No.3
Credit notes:
| S.No. | Description | Taxable value |
SGST | CGST | IGST | CESS |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 1 | Credit notes
issued (GSTR-09 Table 4I of 2021-22) |
10758498
5.60 |
45105.01 | 45105.01 | 19275087
.38 |
0.00 |
| 2 | Supplies/tax reduced through Amendments
(-) (net of credit notes) (GSTR-09 Table 11 of 2020-21) |
0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 3 | Total (1+2) | 10758498 5.60 | 45105.01 | 45105.01 | 19275087 .38 | 0.00 |
14. Summary of the impugned Show Cause Notice in FORM GST DRC 01 dated 23.09.2025 is reproduced below:-
Description |
Tax period |
T.O. |
Rate of Tax |
PoS |
CGST Tax due@9%(Rs.) |
SGST
|
CGST
|
SGST Penalty at 10% or 1000 u/s 73 (Rs.) |
CGST Interest at 18% P.A. U/s 50(3) |
SGST Interest at 18% P.A. U/s 50(3) |
Unreconciled turnoverreported in
|
2021-22 |
765815- |
18% |
TN |
68923 |
68923 |
11574 |
11574 |
18% PA |
18% PA |
Exempted/ NIL rated/Non GST supplies |
2021-22 |
765815- |
18% |
TN |
1710 |
1710 |
11574 |
11574 |
18% PA |
18% PA |
Credit Notes |
2021-22 |
– |
18% |
TN |
45105 |
45105 |
11574 |
11574 |
18% PA |
18% PA |
TOTAL |
115738 |
115738 |
11574 |
11574 |
||||||
15. The Revenue abstract in the impugned Show Cause Notice in FORM GST DRC 01 dated 23.09.2025 is extracted as detailed below:-
| S. No. | Act | TAX | Interest | Penalty | Late fee | Total |
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) |
| 1 | IGST | 19275087 | 0 | 1927509 | 0 | 21202596 |
| 2 | CGST | 115738 | 0 | 11574 | 0 | 127312 |
| 3 | SGST | 115738 | 0 | 127312 | ||
| 4 | CESS | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| TOTAL | 19506563 | 0 | 1950657 | 0 | 21457220 |
16. Thus, there is no duplication barring exempted supply in the Show Cause Notice in DRC 01 dated 29.05.2025 which was quashed by this Writ Court vide order dated 31.07.2025 in W.P.No.23660 of 2025 and on account of S.No.1 to Discrepancy No.2 in the impugned Show Cause Notice in FORM GST DRC 01 dated 23.09.2025.
17. The argument of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that there is no scope for multiple assessment proceedings for the same tax period in the scheme of Section 73 and Rule 142 of respective GST Enactments and Rules cannot be countenanced in absence of an express bar under the provisions of the respective GST Enactments and the Rules made thereunder. In fact, there can be no bar under the scheme of the respective GST Enactments.
18. Merely because the discrepancies pointed in the intimation in ASMT 10 dated 22.08.2025 has been explained by Petitioner vide Reply dated 19.09.2025 ipso facto would not bar for issuance of a Show Cause Notice in FORM GST DRC 01 under Section 73 of the respective GST Enactments. At best, the proposal in the impugned Show Cause Notice in DRC-01 dated 23.09.2025 can be dropped on merits to the extent of duplication after proper adjudication.
19. If there is any overlap between the demand proposed in the impugned proceedings in Show Cause Notice in FORM GST DRC 01 dated 23.09.2025 and Intimation in DRC 01A dated 06.05.2025, the demand has to be dropped in one of the proceedings.
20. The Show Cause Notice in DRC 01 dated 23.09.2025 also deals with other issues. In any event, the issues raised in the Intimation in DRC 01A dated 06.05.2025 has still not attained finality. The proceedings that were the subject matter of W.P. No. 23660 of 2025 and the impugned proceedings are totally different, except in respect of one item in the impugned Show Cause Notice in FORM GST DRC 01 dated 23.09.2025 at Serial No.2.
21. Since the two proceedings are different, it is therefore for the petitioner to reply to the impugned Show Cause Notice in FORM GST DRC 01 dated 23.09.2025 and raise the defence that are permissible in law before the Respondent.
22.The decision of the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in W.P.No.19495 of 2023 dated 18.12.2023 cited by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is merely an order of interim stay. It has not laid down any ratio to be followed. It does not have any persuasive value of a precedent.
23. Although not cited, in Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax., Kolkata 2016 (4) TMI 548, the Calcutta High Court held there cannot be two assessments for the same tax period on the same subject. There the Court relied on its earlier decision rendered in Avery India Ltd Vs. Union of India., (2011) (268 ELT 64). The basis for these two decision is the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dancans Industries Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi., (2006) (201) ELT 517 (SC).
24. There the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with a situation where there was an overlap in the proposals for demand raised in the multiple Show Cause Notices issued to the assessee for the same tax period. In Paragraph No.23, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dancans Industries Ltd case, referred to supra observed as under:-
“23. It need not be emphasized that there could not be two assessments for the same period”.
25. However, the above conclusion was in the light of the facts of the case as captured in Paragraph No.22. There a Show Cause Notice dated 08.05.1984 was issued for the period July, 1973 to February, 1983 was by the Assistant Collector Central Excise, Kharda Division, Calcutta. A similar Show Cause Notice was issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi dated 01.10.1986 for the period September, 1981 to February, 1983.
26 .For the period September 1981 to February, 1983, the Commissioner of Central Excise passed the order dated 27.03.1991 and directed the Assistant Commissioner to determine the assessable values taking into consideration the materials contained in the said Show Cause Notice. These Show Cause Notices were finally adjudicated by the Assistant Collector Central Excise, Kharda Division, Calcutta on 11.01.1996 for the entire period July, 1973 to February, 1983.
27. The effect of the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi was that the Assistant Collector Central Excise, Kharta Division, Calcutta alone had the jurisdiction to finally adjudicate and determine the assessable value of the goods cleared from the assessee’s factory for the entire period and the consequent duty liability.
28. It was in the context the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that either party wishing to dispute the determination made by the Assistant Collector Central Excise, Kharda Division, Calcutta had to do so by invoking the right of appeal to the Commissioner of Appeals, Tribunal and the Supreme Court.
29. The Court also observed in addition the Department could have invoked the short levy provision under Section 11A within a period of six months or invoked the extended period of limitation of 5 years under proviso to Section 11A provided the conditions laid down in the proviso were satisfied.
30. As far as the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Avery India Ltd, referred to supra, which followed the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dancans Industries Ltd case, referred to supra is concerned dealt with a challenge to the Show Cause Notice dated 27.03.2022 issued for the financial years 1986 to 2021 by invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Act. It was apparently issued on the same set of facts for which another Show Cause Notice dated 05.03.1992 for the period from 1986 to 1992 has been issued.
31. It was in this context in Paragraph No 37, the Court held as under:-
“37. Moreover, as held by the Supreme Court in Dancans Industries Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi reported in 2006 (201) ELT 517 (S.C.) cited by Mr.Mittal, there could not be two assessments for the same period. Two show cause notices could not, therefore, have been issued in relation to the same period, that is the period from 1986 to February/March 1992. The impugned show cause notice cannot, therefore be sustained”
32. Therefore, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dancans Industries Ltd case, referred to supra and the decisions of the Calcutta High Court in Simplex Infrastructures Ltd and Avery India Ltd cases referred to supra, would not apply to the facts of the present case.
33. A Division Bench of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in M/s ALM Industries Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner (AE) Central Goods and Services and 2 Others in W.P.No.2505 of 2024 vide Order dated 10.01.2025 held has already taken a view that there is no bar for issuance of multiple Show Cause Notices for the same tax period under GST if the Show Cause Notices addressed different subject matters. This view is to be accepted and followed.
34. Further, in the width of tax laws, principles of estoppel or res-redicata does not strictly apply. While dealing with the applicability of provisions under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Bombay High Court in H.A. Shah and Co. Vs. CIT., (1956) 30 ITR 618 (Bom) held as follows:-
“24. Therefore in our opinion an earlier decision on the same question cannot be reopened if that decision is not arbitrary or perverse, if it had been arrived at after due inquiry, if no fresh facts are placed before the Tribunal giving the later decision and if the Tribunal giving the earlier decision has taken into consideration all material evidence… ”
35. Only bar under the law is the issuance of a Show Cause Notice against where an Assessment Order is sought to be revised by a subsequent incumbent as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 2010 (2) SCC 723; [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC) rendered in the context of Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
36. The decision of this Court rendered on 16.07.2024 in W.P.No.15307 of 2024 [Mandarina Apartment Owners Welfare Association (MAOWA) Vs. Commercial Tax Officer/State Tax Officer] is also relevant. Paragraph Nos. 13 and 14 are relevant.
37. There the court held that a range of options are available to the proper officer if the examination is not satisfactory and the determination of tax and other liabilities is only under Sections 73 and 74 and not under Section 61 of the respective GST Enactments. The Court further observed that neither reassessment nor adjudication takes place under Section 61. These paragraphs are extracted hereunder:-
“13. Sub-section 3 of Section 61 prescribes that the proper officer may initiate appropriate action under Sections 65 or 66 or 67 or proceed to determine the tax and other dues under Sections 73 or 74, if the explanation of the tax payer is not satisfactory. Two aspects are noticeable: a range of options are available to the proper officer if the explanation is not satisfactory; and, more importantly, the determination of tax and other liabilities is only under Sections 73 or 74 and not under Section 61. If determination of tax and other liabilities is not undertaken under Section 61, what is achieved by the scrutiny process? First, it enables the proper officer to select and scrutinize returns and conclude that there are no discrepancies. Secondly, if there are discrepancies, the registered person is provided an opportunity to explain or accept the discrepancies. For that purpose, the proper officer is required to set out the discrepancies and, where possible, quantify the amount of tax, interest and other payables. The text of Rule 99(1) uses the words “where possible” before the word “quantifying” thereby clarifying that even quantification is not mandatory. The format of Form ASMT-10 also points in the same direction.
14. When read with sub-section (3) of Section 61, which provides the option of determining tax and other liabilities by resorting to Sections 73 or 74, it becomes clear that neither reassessment nor adjudication takes place under Section 61. Indeed, it should be noticed that unlike Section 60(provisional assessment under conditions prescribed therein) or Section 62(best judgment assessment of non-filers subject to conditions prescribed therein) or Section 63(assessment of unregistered persons) or Section 64 (summary assessment), no assessment, including re assessment, is undertaken under Section 61. Therefore, the consequence of not issuing the ASMT-10 notice, in spite of noticing discrepancies after selecting and scrutinizing returns, would be that it vitiates the scrutiny process, including the discrepancies noticed thereby and the quantification, if any, done in course thereof. As regards adjudication, the limited impact would be that the scrutiny under Section 61 cannot be relied upon for adjudication.”
38. Therefore, the challenge to the impugned Show Cause Notice in FORM GST DRC 01 dated 23.09.2025 which preceded an Intimation in FORM GST ASMT 10 dated 22.08.2025 cannot be countenanced in the light of the above discussions.
39. That apart, there is also no bar for issuance of multiple Show Cause Notices to an assessee for the same tax period, if the Show Cause proceedings are initiated on different and separate issues.
40. That apart, neither the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 nor the General Principles under the Code are applicable to the proceedings initiated under the respective GST Enactments.
41. Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are referred to which reads as under:-
| Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 | Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 | Section 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 |
| 10.Stay of suit-
No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court. Explanation- The pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Courts in India from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action. |
11. Res judicata.—
No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court. …. |
12. Bar to further suit. —
Where a plaintiff is precluded by rules from instituting a further suit in respect of any particular cause of action, he shall not be entitled to institute a suit in respect of such cause of action in any Court to which this Code applies. |
42. Principle akin to the one in these aforementioned provisions from the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are conspicuously absent under the scheme of the respective GST Enactments.
43. Interpreting the concept of res-judicata, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Workmen of Cochin Port Trust Vs. The Board of Trustees of the Cochin Port Trust and Another, AIR 1978 SC 1283 explained the meaning of res-judicata. It held Principle of res-judicata comes into play when by judgement and order a decision of a particular issue is implicit in it, that is, it must be deemed to have been necessarily decided by implications even then the Principle of res-judicata on that is issue is directly applicable.
44. As far as constructive res-judicata is concerned, it has held when any matter which might and ought to have been made a ground of defence or attack in a former proceeding but was not so made, then such a matter in the eye of law, to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to bring about finality in it, is deemed to have been constructively in issue and therefore, is taken as decided.
45. In Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur., 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (SC), the Court held that a specific inclusion of a condonation period within the special law viz., the Central Excise Act, 1944 therein indicated a clear legislative intent to exclude the general and potentially unlimited condonation power available under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This decision relied on by the various High Courts in several cases to hold that the GST Enactments is a self contained code.
46. The underlying principle in Order II Rule 2 and Sections 10, 11 and 12 in Part I of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 which dealt with the principle for a suit to include whole claim and principle of res-judicata does not apply, as a similar proceeding is conspicuously absent under the scheme of the respective GST Enactments.
47. Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 reads as under:-
“Order II Rule 2 –
2.Suit to include the whole claim– (1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court.
(2) Relinquishment of part of claim – Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.
(3) Omission to sue for one of several reliefs – A person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs; but if he omits, except with the leave of the Court, to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted.
Explanation – For the purpose of this rule, an obligation and a collateral security for its performance and successive claims arising under the same obligation shall be deemed respectively to constitute but one cause of action.”
48. Merely because an earlier intimation in DRC 01A dated 06.05.2025 was issued followed by a Show Cause Notice in DRC 01 dated 29.05.2025, which stood quashed vide order dated 31.07.2025 in W.P. No. 23660 of 2025, ipso facto therefore would not mean the impugned Show Cause proceedings is without any jurisdiction.
49. In view of the above discussion, I find that there is no merit in the present Writ Petition. Therefore, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Liberty is however given to the Petitioner to file a reply to the impugned Show Cause Notice in DRC 01 dated 23.09.2025 within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. In case the Petitioner complies with all the stipulations, the Respondents shall thereafter proceed to pass a final order on merits in the proceedings thereafter.
50. In case the Petitioner fails to comply with any of the stipulations, the Respondents are at liberty to proceed against the Petitioner in the manner known to law before recovering the tax in accordance with law.
Connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
****
(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)
Author Bio
