Tvl Saravanan vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1/ The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's contention regarding duplication was liable to be accepted. Upon examining the petitioner's GSTR-1 statement for 2019-20, the Court found that the turnover reflected therein tallied with that mentioned in the GSTR-7 returns filed by the deductors. This confirmed the petitioner's submission of complete overlap between the issues addressed in the impugned orders and those in earlier proceedings. Consequently, the Court set aside both impugned orders. The matters were remanded to the assessing officer for reconsideration. The assessing officer was directed to take into account the earlier orders dated 06.12.2022 and 30.11.2022, along with the pending appeals, and issue fresh orders within five months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Court's order. The ratio decidendi is that assessment proceedings should not be duplicated when prior orders on the same issues for the same periods are already under challenge in appeal.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Saravanan, filed two writ petitions challenging assessment orders dated 20.01.2025 and 11.11.2025 for the assessment periods 2019-20 and 2021-22 respectively. The petitioner contended that these orders dealt with the same issues for the same assessment periods as earlier orders dated 06.12.2022 and 30.11.2022, for which appeals were already pending before the appellate authority. The respondent revenue authority stated that the order dated 20.01.2025 addressed two issues, with the second issue (reconciliation of turnover in GSTR-7 with GSTR-3B) being dropped, and the first issue concerning the reconciliation of GSTR-1 with GSTR-9. The petitioner argued that the turnover declared in GSTR-1 was identical to that in GSTR-7, indicating a complete overlap.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment orders dated 20.01.2025 and 11.11.2025 are vitiated by duplication, considering earlier orders for the same assessment periods and pending appeals? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned orders dealt with the same issues for the same assessment periods as prior orders, for which appeals were already filed and are pending. This constitutes duplication and renders the current orders illegal. The petitioner also submitted that the turnover declared in GSTR-1 matches that in GSTR-7, reinforcing the claim of overlap. Revenue's arguments: The respondent revenue authority contended that the order dated 20.01.2025 dealt with two issues, one of which was dropped. The remaining issue pertained to the reconciliation of GSTR-1 with GSTR-9. The respondent did not explicitly counter the petitioner's assertion of duplication concerning the prior orders and pending appeals.