Tvl Sri Sarathammal Traders vs. The Deputy Commercialtax Officer Ll

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.SRI SARATHAMMAL TRADERS, represented by its Proprietor S.Lalitha, challenged an order dated 14.06.2023 (GST DRC 07 Ref.No. ZD330623055606F) passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer – II, Rajapalayam, for the assessment year 2019-20. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory provisions, asserting it was a case of duplication. The respondent argued that the impugned order pertained to two defects, while a subsequent order dated 03.08.2024 addressed only one defect, acknowledging some overlap. The petitioner had already filed an appeal before the appellate authority against the subsequent order, which was pending.

Held

The Court held that it is well-settled that two assessment orders cannot be passed for the same defect. The Court found merit in the petitioner's assertion of duplication, especially given the respondent's admission of overlapping defects between the impugned order and the subsequent order. The Court noted that the petitioner had already filed an appeal against the subsequent order, which was pending. Therefore, to address the issue of multiple orders for the same period and potential duplication, the Court set aside the impugned order. The matter was remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law, considering all relevant aspects and avoiding duplication. The Court explicitly stated that the writ petition was allowed accordingly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the issuance of two assessment orders for the same defect for the assessment year 2019-20 is legally permissible under the GST regime? (Question of law). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was a clear case of duplication and was passed without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory provisions. They relied on the principle that two assessment orders cannot be passed for the same defect. Respondent's contention: The respondent contended that the impugned order pertained to two defects, whereas the subsequent order addressed only one defect. They acknowledged that there was an overlap between the two orders.