Tvl. Indo Associates vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Held

The Court held that the impugned Assessment Order dated 06.03.2024, for the Assessment Year 2018-2019, was liable to be quashed. The Court found merit in the petitioner's contention that the proceedings were a duplication of earlier assessment proceedings for the same period and subject matter. This was supported by the concession made by the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents, who acknowledged the duplication and the fact that the petitioner had already filed an appeal against the earlier assessment order dated 25.04.2022. The Court reasoned that dual demands under the respective GST enactments cannot be sustained in law when they pertain to the same assessment year and subject matter. Consequently, the impugned Assessment Order was quashed, and the Writ Petition was allowed. No costs were awarded.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Indo Associates, filed a writ petition challenging an Assessment Order dated 06.03.2024, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer – 2, Dindigul Rural Assessment Circle, for the Assessment Year 2018-2019. The impugned order was issued after the petitioner failed to respond to notices and appear for a personal hearing. The petitioner contended that similar assessment proceedings for the same period had already occurred, resulting in an earlier order dated 25.04.2022. Subsequently, the petitioner had filed an appeal against this earlier order. The respondents, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, conceded that there was a duplication of proceedings and that the petitioner had already filed an appeal against the earlier assessment order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned Assessment Order dated 06.03.2024, for the Assessment Year 2018-2019, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of duplication of proceedings and the existence of a prior assessment order for the same period and subject matter. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the current assessment order is a duplication of earlier proceedings for the same assessment year and subject matter, which had already culminated in an order dated 25.04.2022. They further submitted that an appeal against the earlier order had been filed. Revenue's Contention: The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents fairly conceded that there had been a duplication of proceedings and acknowledged that the petitioner had already filed an appeal against the earlier assessment order.