Tvl. Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Sugars Private Limited vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. DHANALAKSHMI SRINIVASAN SUGARS (P) LTD., filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order in Form GST DRC-07, Reference No. ZD330525168600J /2021-22, dated 16.05.2025, passed by the respondent, The State Tax Officer, Nanguneri Assessment Circle. The petitioner contended that this order was cryptic, a duplication of assessment, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. The petitioner had previously been issued an assessment order dated 02.02.2024 for the assessment year 2021-2022, citing belated filing of Form GSTR-3B and other defects. While these defects were subsequently rectified, a fresh order was issued for the same defect and the same assessment year, leading to the present challenge.

Held

The Court held that the impugned assessment order dated 16.05.2025, in Reference No. ZD330525168600J /2021-22, was a clear case of duplication. The Court reasoned that for a specific assessment year and a particular defect, there can only be one assessment order. Since a prior assessment order dated 02.02.2024 had already been issued for the assessment year 2021-2022 concerning the belated filing of Form GSTR-3B, the subsequent order for the same issue was unsustainable. The Court quashed the impugned order on this ground. The ratio decidendi is that administrative authorities must avoid issuing duplicate orders for the same matter to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and ensure fairness. The operative direction was to quash the impugned order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated 16.05.2025 is liable to be quashed as being a duplication of a prior assessment order for the same tax period and the same defect, thereby violating principles of natural justice and administrative efficiency? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuance of a second assessment order for the identical defect (belated filing of Form GSTR-3B) and for the same assessment year (2021-2022) constituted a clear duplication. They contended that for a given assessment year and a specific defect, only one assessment order should be permissible. The impugned order was therefore illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. Respondent's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent. However, the respondent was represented by a Government Advocate, indicating their presence and likely defense of the impugned order.