Introduction
The GST adjudication framework aims to balance effective revenue protection with procedural economy. In practice, however, taxpayers sometimes face a cluster of Show Cause Notices (SCNs) touching the same tax period—occasionally from different wings of the administration, and sometimes on substantially the same grounds. This creates duplication, forum conflict, and uncertainty about how to respond, especially when one proceeding has already advanced to order or recovery. The statutory scheme under Chapter XV (Demands and Recovery) of the CGST Act read with the Rules, together with the cross-empowerment bar in Section 6, indicates that multiplicity is neither intended nor necessary: one comprehensive notice should ordinarily anchor the dispute, with statements used to cover additional periods on the same grounds, and Section 84 used to give effect to variations after appellate outcomes instead of re-noticing. Recent judicial directions, including a Delhi High Court order flagging overlapping SCNs and seeking consolidation while protecting the assessee from coercive steps, reinforce this trajectory of procedural fairness and administrative coherence.
The Law
The primary charging of adjudication is through Sections 73/74 (now alongside Section 74A for FY 2024-25 onward), which require the proper officer to “serve notice” where tax is not paid/short paid, refund is erroneous, or ITC is wrongly availed/used. Crucially, Section 73(3)– (4) permits the officer—once a notice is issued for any period—to serve a statement for “such periods other than those covered” in the earlier notice, provided the grounds are the same; the statement is deemed to be service of notice for those other periods. This design discourages repetitive, stand-alone SCNs when the grounds are common, and channels officers to extend the controversy via statements rather than spawning fresh notices for each slice of time.
Rule 142 operationalizes the mechanism by prescribing electronic summaries (DRC-01 for notices and DRC-02 for statements) and the downstream forms for closure or order (DRC-05/DRC-07). Again, the architecture points to consolidation and clarity rather than fragmentation.
On parallel proceedings by different authorities for the same subject matter, Section 6(2)(b) embodies a clear bar: where a proper officer under one enactment has initiated proceedings “on a subject matter,” no proceedings shall be initiated by the counterpart officer under the other enactment on the same subject matter. Though the text excerpted here is from the UTGST Act, the provision mirrors the CGST/SGST cross-empowerment scheme and captures the same principle against duplication across jurisdictions.
When a demand already culminates in an order and is later enhanced or reduced because of appellate or “other proceedings,” the statute eschews a fresh SCN. Section 84 directs continuation/validation of recovery: the Commissioner serves another notice of demand only for the enhanced portion, or merely intimates reduction—without re-opening by a new SCN. CBIC has also clarified administration of Section 84, emphasizing intimation via DRC-25 when dues are reduced (e.g., after IBC outcomes).
Finally, recent court management of overlapping period SCNs underscores the expectation of consolidation/bifurcation plans and interim protection against coercive action while the overlap is addressed.
The Issues
Whether multiple SCNs covering overlapping periods should be bifurcated or consolidated, and whether coercive steps could proceed pending the writ.
Delhi High Court — Interim Order Summary
In the case of Sh. Raghav Agarwal v. Principal Commissioner, CGST & CX, Delhi North & Ors., W.P.(C) 17260/2024, Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that Respondents to file replies within three weeks; rejoinder within two weeks thereafter. Till then, respondents are restrained from taking coercive measures pursuant to orders dated 21.01.2025, 23.01.2025, 31.01.2025 and 04.02.2025. Matter listed on 19.03.2025. The Court noted that earlier directions (13.12.2024) had sought clarity from the department on handling overlapping SCNs—either by bifurcation or consolidation—but adequate instructions were still not forthcoming. Meanwhile, final assessment orders had been passed; however, the Court had already observed that any such orders would abide by the writ’s final outcome. Timelines were fixed to advance pleadings.
Conclusion
The statutory scheme discourages multiplicity. A single, comprehensive SCN should ground the dispute, with statements used to bring adjacent periods on identical grounds and Section 84 used to reflect appellate variations without re-noticing. Parallel CGST/SGST SCNs on the same subject matter are barred by Section 6(2)(b), and courts have increasingly pressed for consolidation where overlapping periods are in play, granting interim protection against coercion while duplication is sorted. What remains contentious is the contour of “same subject matter” and when later notices truly rely on new grounds or evidence. Until clearer appellate guidance crystallizes, taxpayers should: (i) insist on the Section 73/Rule 142 pathway (statements versus fresh SCNs), (ii) invoke Section 6(2)(b) to halt parallel proceedings, and (iii) channel post-order variations through Section 84, supported by CBIC’s instructions, rather than tolerate re-litigation by repetitive SCNs.
