Nitender Thakur vs. Assistant Sales Tax Officer Delhi And Anr
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioner, Nitender Thakur, engaged in construction business, challenged two orders: an Order in Original (OIO) dated April 26, 2024, and a Rectification Order (RO) dated July 29, 2024. These orders stemmed from two Show Cause Notices (SCNs) issued under Section 73(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. A first SCN dated December 4, 2023, and a second SCN dated December 9, 2023, were issued, allegedly on the same cause of action. One SCN led to an order dated April 19, 2024, confirming a demand of Rs. 27,69,308/-. The first SCN culminated in the impugned OIO dated April 26, 2024, raising a similar demand. The Petitioner had an appeal pending against the April 19, 2024 order and had sought rectification of the impugned OIO due to overlap, which was rejected by the impugned RO.
Held
The Court held that the impugned Order in Original dated April 26, 2024, and the Rectification Order dated July 29, 2024, were indeed overlapping. The Revenue conceded that the Order in Original was overlapping. Consequently, the Court quashed both the impugned OIO and the impugned RO. The Court noted that an appeal against a separate order dated April 19, 2024, which was also for the same demand, was pending and would proceed on its own merits. The Court did not decide on the merits of the demand itself, but rather on the procedural defect of having overlapping orders.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned Order in Original dated April 26, 2024, and the Rectification Order dated July 29, 2024, are liable to be quashed on the ground that they are duplicate and overlapping in nature, arising from the same cause of action, contrary to the principles of natural justice and due process under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the two SCNs and the subsequent orders were duplicate and overlapping, leading to a demand for the same amount based on the same transactions, rendering the impugned orders unsustainable. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its counsel, submitted that the impugned OIO was indeed overlapping.
Sections Cited
Section 73(1), Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R % 28.08.2025
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia challenging two orders namely Order in Original dated 26th April, 2024 (hereinafter ‘impugned OIO’)and the Rectification Order dated 29th July, 2024 (hereinafter ‘impugned RO’).
A brief background of this case is that the Petitioner is carrying on construction business with its principal place of business in Delhi and is holding a GST registration bearing reference no. 07AAFPT1731Q2Z7. A Show Cause Notice dated 04th December, 2023 (hereinafter‘firstSCN’) was raised against the Petitioner under Section 73 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) proposing certain demands. Subsequently, a second SCN dated 09th December, 2023 (hereinafter‘second SCN’) was issued allegedly on the same cause of action which culminated in the Order in Original dated 19th April, 2024 confirming a demand of Rs. 27,69,308/-. Thereafter, the first SCN culminated into the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/09/2025 at 12:15:39
impugned OIO dated 26th April, 2024 raising a demand to the same extent as the other Order in Original dated 19th April, 2024 i.e., Rs 27,69,308/-. Consequently, the Petitioner availed of the following remedies: (i) an appeal against the Order in Original dated 19th April, 2024 under Section 107 of the Act which is stated to be pending and (ii) an application seeking rectification of impugned OIO dated 26th April, 2024 inter alia on the ground that there was overlap. This application was rejected vide the impugned RO on 29th July, 2024. 4. Thus the present petition has been filed. The grounds in which the present petition has, therefore, been filed is that in respect of the same transactions, the orders are duplicate in nature and are overlapping.
Notice was issued in this matter on 15th January, 2025. 6. Ms. Vaishali Gupta, ld. Panel Counsel today under instructions submits that the impugned OIO was, in fact, overlapping.
Under such circumstances, both the impugned orders being OIO dated 26th April, 2024 and Rectification order dated 29th July, 2024 are quashed.
Insofar as the appeal against the order dated 19th April, 2024 is concerned, the same shall proceed on its own merits.
The present petition along with pending applications, if any, stands disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. SHAIL JAIN, J. AUGUST 28, 2025/sk/Ar. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/09/2025 at 12:15:39
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.