Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (6) TMI 1786 - HC - GSTChallenge to order passed u/s 74 of the TNGST Act 2017 - impugned order has resulted in double jeo pardi - HELD THAT - It is noticed that Form GST DRC 05 is issued under Rule 142(3) of the respective Rules for intimation of conclusion of proceedings. The order that has to be passed in pursuant to the Show Cause Notice in DRC 01 is normally in GST DRC 07. It appears to be the same mistake in the order that was passed earlier on 04.10.2023 in GST DRC 05. In any event the fact of the matter is that the impugned order has been passed on 27.08.2024 without the petitioner participating in the adjudication proceedings initiated vide DRC 01 dated 20.12.2023. It appears to be some overlap which needs to be looked into. Hence the above impugned orders are quashed and the case is remitted back to the first respondent to pass fresh orders on merit and in accordance with law within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off.
The Madras High Court, through Justice C. Saravanan, disposed of the Writ Petition challenging the impugned order dated 27.08.2024 for the tax period 2019-20. The petitioner contended that an earlier order dated 04.10.2023 under GST DRC 05 (Section 74, TNGST Act, 2017) for the same period resulted in "double jeopardy," warranting quashing of the later order. The Court noted that GST DRC 05 is typically an intimation of conclusion under Rule 142(3), whereas the adjudication order following a Show Cause Notice (DRC 01) should be in GST DRC 07. The Court observed an apparent procedural overlap and that the impugned order was passed without the petitioner's participation in adjudication proceedings initiated on 20.12.2023. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned orders and remitted the matter to the first respondent to pass fresh orders "on merit and in accordance with law" within 30 days. The petitioner may substantiate his case, and respondents must justify issuance of orders for the same period. The petition was disposed of with no costs.
|