Case Reference
Dinesh Kumar Varma v. Sales Tax Officer, Class-II, AVATO Ward-93, Zone-8, Delhi
Delhi High Court
W.P. (C) 5487/2024
Section 73, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Category: GST Demand – Parallel Show Cause Notices / Natural Justice
Date of Judgment: 22 April 2024
Facts
The petitioner challenged an adjudication order dated 25.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, whereby a show cause notice dated 21.09.2023 was adjudicated, creating a GST demand of ₹15,53,240 for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner asserted that he had no knowledge of the said show cause notice and therefore could not file a reply. It further emerged that another adjudication order dated 17.12.2023, based on a separate show cause notice dated 24.09.2023 for the very same tax period, had been passed by another officer of the same jurisdiction, raising an almost identical demand.
(Paras 1–3)
Questions / Dispute
Whether two separate adjudication orders, emanating from two show cause notices issued by officers of the same jurisdiction for the same tax period and raising identical demands, could legally survive under the CGST framework, particularly when the assessee was allegedly deprived of an effective opportunity of being heard.
(Paras 2–3)
Observations
The Court noted that both show cause notices pertained to the identical tax period, namely July 2017 to March 2018, and were adjudicated by two different officers belonging to the same jurisdictional office (AVATO Ward-93, Zone-B, Delhi). The demands raised under both orders were substantially the same, differing only marginally in amount. The Bench observed that such parallel adjudications for the same period were procedurally untenable and inherently violative of principles of fairness, particularly when the petitioner contended lack of notice and opportunity to respond.
(Paras 3–4)
Judgment / Verdict
The Delhi High Court set aside both adjudication orders dated 17.12.2023 and 25.12.2023. The Court directed that the proceedings arising from both show cause notices dated 21.09.2023 and 24.09.2023 be clubbed and re-adjudicated by one proper officer in accordance with law. The petitioner was granted liberty to file replies to both notices within 30 days, and the adjudicating authority was directed to conclude proceedings within the timeline prescribed under Section 75(3) of the CGST Act. The Court expressly clarified that it had not examined the merits of the tax demand, leaving all rights and contentions open.
(Paras 4–6)
Relevant Statutory Provisions
-
Section 73, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
-
Section 75(3), Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Cases Referred – Summary Table
| Case | Court | Core Issue | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dinesh Kumar Varma v. STO, AVATO Ward-93 | Delhi High Court | Parallel SCNs and adjudication for same tax period | Both orders set aside; fresh consolidated adjudication directed |
Between the Fine Lines (Trade & Industry Takeaway)
The ruling reinforces that the GST administration cannot initiate or conclude multiple adjudications for the same tax period through parallel show cause notices, even if issued by officers of the same jurisdiction. For taxpayers, the judgment provides strong procedural protection against duplicative demands and underscores the enforceability of natural justice where overlapping proceedings create legal prejudice.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
