2025 (3) TMI 1316 - HC - GST

Challenge to SCN concerning the same tax period and subject matter u/s 73 of the KGST Act - HELD THAT - As rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner in relation to very same tax period 2019-2020 and the same subject matter in respect of the very same petitioner both 4th respondent - The Commercial Tax Officer Ramanagara as well as the 5th respondent - the Commercial Tax Officer(Audit) Channapatna have passed similar orders under identical circumstances against the very same petitioner under Section 73(9) of the KGST Act which is impermissible in law. It is also relevant to state that in view of the specific submission made on behalf of the petitioner that he intends to avail the benefits of Amnesty Scheme as contemplated under Section 128 (A) of the KGST Act it is deemed appropriate to set aside both the impugned orders at Annexure - A dated 27.06.2024 and Annexure -B dated 31.08.2024 and remit the matter back to the 4th respondent - The Commercial Tax Officer Ramanagara for re-consideration afresh in accordance with law and by issuing certain directions. Conclusion - The petitioner is granted the liberty to pursue the Amnesty Scheme under Section 128(A) of the KGST Act with the 3rd respondent directed to facilitate this upon the passing of appropriate orders by the 4th respondent. Matter is remitted back to the 4th respondent - The Commercial Tax Officer Ramanagara for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The primary legal question considered in this judgment is whether the orders passed by the 4th and 5th respondents, both concerning the same tax period and subject matter under Section 73 of the KGST Act, are valid. The petitioner challenges the validity of these orders on the grounds that they are impermissible in law due to their duplication and seeks to have them quashed. Additionally, the petitioner seeks to avail the benefits of the Amnesty Scheme under Section 128(A) of the KGST Act.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Validity of Dual Orders under Section 73 of the KGST Act

- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 73 of the KGST Act pertains to the determination of tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded. The provision allows for proceedings to be initiated against a taxpayer for the recovery of such tax. However, the law does not permit multiple orders for the same tax period and subject matter against the same taxpayer.

- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court acknowledged that the 4th and 5th respondents issued orders under identical circumstances for the same tax period and subject matter, which is impermissible. The Court noted that such duplication is against the principles of law governing tax assessments and proceedings.

- Key Evidence and Findings: Both orders were issued for the tax period 2019-2020 concerning the same subject matter. The petitioner intends to utilize the Amnesty Scheme under Section 128(A) of the KGST Act, which necessitates the setting aside of these orders to allow for reassessment.

- Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the legal principle that prohibits multiple orders for the same tax period and subject matter, thereby finding the impugned orders invalid.

- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents argued for the dismissal of the petition, asserting no merit in the petitioner's claims. However, the Court found the petitioner's argument compelling, particularly in light of the intent to avail the Amnesty Scheme.

- Conclusions: The Court concluded that the orders by the 4th and 5th respondents should be set aside, and the matter remitted to the 4th respondent for fresh consideration.

2. Availment of Amnesty Scheme under Section 128(A) of the KGST Act

- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 128(A) of the KGST Act provides for an Amnesty Scheme, allowing taxpayers to settle their tax liabilities under certain conditions.

- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court recognized the petitioner's right to apply for the Amnesty Scheme and deemed it necessary to set aside the existing orders to facilitate this process.

- Conclusions: The Court granted the petitioner the liberty to apply for the Amnesty Scheme, contingent upon the 4th respondent's reconsideration of the matter.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

- The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned orders at Annexure-A and Annexure-B.

- The matter is remitted back to the 4th respondent for reconsideration afresh, with specific directions to ensure compliance with the legal framework.

- The petitioner is granted the liberty to pursue the Amnesty Scheme under Section 128(A) of the KGST Act, with the 3rd respondent directed to facilitate this upon the passing of appropriate orders by the 4th respondent.

- The Court's directive includes a specific timeline for the petitioner to appear before the 4th respondent and for the 4th respondent to pass orders, ensuring expedited resolution.