Case Law Details
Karthikeya Exhibitors Vs Deputy Commissioner (Telangana High Court)
Telangana High Court Allows Rectification of Multiple GST Show Cause Notices for Same Tax Period
In a significant relief for taxpayers facing duplicate GST proceedings, the Telangana High Court reaffirmed that errors involving issuance of multiple show cause notices and multiple adjudication orders for the same tax period can be corrected through rectification under Section 161 of the Telangana GST Act, 2017.
The Court disposed of the writ petitions filed by M/s. Karthikeya Exhibitors by following its earlier landmark common order in W.P. No.20731 of 2025 and batch matters dated 15.10.2025.
The ruling strengthens an emerging judicial and administrative framework in Telangana aimed at resolving procedural GST errors through rectification instead of prolonged litigation.
Case Background
Petitioner
M/s. Karthikeya Exhibitors
Represented by its Proprietor, Mr. Srinivas Adepu, Warangal, Telangana.
Respondents
- Deputy Commissioner, STU-1, Warangal Division
- Other State GST Authorities
Facts of the Case
The petitioner approached the Telangana High Court challenging GST adjudication proceedings on the ground that:
- multiple show cause notices were issued,
- multiple adjudication orders were passed,
- for the very same tax period.
The proceedings were initiated under:
- Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017,
- Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and
- Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act.
Grievance Raised
The petitioner contended that:
- duplicate proceedings for the same tax period resulted in procedural irregularity and prejudice,
- the issue required intervention by the High Court.
Key Legal Issue
Whether issuance of multiple GST show cause notices and adjudication orders for the same tax period can be rectified under Section 161 of the Telangana CGST Act 2017
Arguments Presented
Petitioner
The petitioner submitted that:
- multiple proceedings had been initiated for identical tax periods,
- such duplication caused procedural inconsistency and prejudice,
- rectification or corrective action was necessary.
The petitioner also agreed that the matter could be disposed of in terms of the earlier Telangana High Court judgment in W.P. No.20731 of 2025 and batch matters.
Respondents
The State Tax Department also agreed that:
- the issue was covered by the earlier common order dated 15.10.2025,
- such errors are amenable to rectification under Section 161 of the TGST Act.
Court Observations
The Telangana High Court noted that both parties were in consensus that the dispute was squarely covered by the earlier common judgment passed in W.P. No.20731 of 2025 and batch cases.
The Court referred to its earlier observations where it had held that:
- procedural errors involving:
- multiple show cause notices,
- duplicate orders,
- overlapping proceedings,
can be rectified under Section 161 of the TGST Act.
The earlier judgment had also recorded the State’s stand that:
- such rectification could be undertaken:
- suo motu by the proper officer, or
- upon application by the affected taxpayer.
The Court further noted that:
- the six-month limitation under Section 161 may not apply in such cases due to the second proviso to Section 161,
- the Department had already issued an SOP/circular dated 14.10.2025 to address similar grievances.
Final Judgment
The Telangana High Court disposed of the writ petitions in terms of the earlier common order dated 15.10.2025.
Directions Issued
1. The proper officer shall:
-
- undertake rectification exercise in accordance with law.
2. Taxpayers shall:
-
- be given due intimation and opportunity to provide necessary information/submissions.
3. If rectification results in:
-
- refund entitlement,
the proper officer shall take appropriate action as per law.
- refund entitlement,
4. If any grievance remains unresolved and is beyond rectification powers under Section 161:
-
- the taxpayer may approach the appropriate forum.
5. No order as to costs.
Author’s Analysis (Practical Takeaways)
1. Telangana HC has created a strong precedent on duplicate GST proceedings
This ruling reinforces that:
- duplicate notices,
- overlapping adjudication orders, and
- repeated proceedings for the same tax period
are procedural errors capable of rectification.
2. Section 161 rectification power is being interpreted broadly
The Court accepted that rectification powers are wide enough to address significant procedural defects in GST proceedings.
3. Limitation under Section 161 may not block correction
Importantly, the Court recognized that the second proviso to Section 161 may permit rectification even beyond six months in appropriate cases.
4. SOP issued by Telangana GST Department gains judicial backing
The Court expressly referred to the departmental circular/SOP dated 14.10.2025, thereby strengthening its operational importance.
5. Taxpayers should first seek rectification before litigation
In cases involving:
- duplicate SCNs,
- repeated orders,
- clerical overlaps,
- tax period duplication,
taxpayers should now consider Section 161 rectification as the first remedy.
6. Refund consequences also protected
The Court clarified that where rectification results in excess recovery or duplication, refund action may also be considered.
7. Judicial trend favors procedural correction over prolonged disputes
The Telangana High Court continues adopting a pragmatic approach aimed at:
- reducing avoidable GST litigation,
- correcting departmental procedural mistakes,
- ensuring substantive fairness.
Conclusion
The Telangana High Court’s ruling in M/s. Karthikeya Exhibitors further strengthens the evolving jurisprudence that duplicate GST proceedings for the same tax period are rectifiable procedural errors under Section 161 of the TGST Act.
The judgment also reflects increasing coordination between judicial interpretation and departmental administrative mechanisms to resolve GST procedural disputes efficiently without forcing taxpayers into prolonged appellate litigation.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Learned counsel Sri K.P.Amarnath Reddy appears for the petitioner.
Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, appears for the respondents.
2. Both the writ petitions are tagged together on account of similarity of grievances raised by the petitioner in respect of adjudication proceedings under the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 or Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act by issuance of multiple show cause notices followed by multiple orders passed for the same tax period.
3. Today, at the hearing, learned counsel for the parties are in consensus that the matters can be disposed of in the lines of common order dated 15.10.2025, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.20731 of 2025 and batch cases, where similar issue was involved.
4. This court by order dated 15.10.2025 disposed of Writ Petition No.20731 of 2025 and batch cases in the following terms:
“7. Learned Advocate General submits that the issues which have been raised by the petitioners in these cases are such which the proper officer on his own motion or being brought to his notice by the affected person also can rectify. According to learned Advocate General, these errors would fall under second proviso to Section 161 of the TGST Act wherein the period of limitation of six months would not apply. It is submitted that the proper officer in these cases would undertake the exercise of rectification in accordance with law. Petitioners would be intimated of such exercise so that they can provide necessary information and/or submission to enable the officer to exercise his jurisdiction for rectification of the errors which may have occurred in passing assessment orders in individual cases.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners agreed to the suggestion that the grievances relating to issuance of multiple show cause notices or orders covering same tax period are amenable to rectification under Section 161 of the TGST Act. They also agree that the SOP would enable the petitioners or other such affected tax payers to approach the proper officer for rectification of such errors.
9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of the stand of the Department, which appears to be in consonance with the power of rectification conferred upon the proper officer under Section 161 of the TGST Act, we deem it proper to dispose of the writ petitions to enable the concerned proper officers to undertake the exercise of rectification of the impugned notices/orders, in accordance with law, within a reasonable time with due intimation to the assessees. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the circular dated 14.10.2025 has also been uploaded on the GST Portal/Commercial Taxes Portal of the Department so that persons aggrieved with similar grievances can approach the proper officer for rectification of such errors, omissions, etc., in the notices or orders issued by the concerned proper officer, in accordance with law.
10. The writ petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Needless to say, upon such rectification, if any of the petitioners have any grievances which are not amenable to the power of rectification under Section 161 of the TGST Act, it would be open for them to raise before appropriate forum in an appropriate proceeding. In case the rectification of the order leads to refund, if any, in favour of any one of these assessees, the proper officer would take appropriate decision in that regard also as per law. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.”
5. Following the aforesaid common order dated 15.10.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.20731 of 2025 and batch, the instant writ petitions are also disposed of in similar terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
Author Bio
