Duplicate GST Assessment For Same Year Held Invalid: Madras HC Sets Aside Order, allows Fresh Adjudication on 10% Pre-Deposit [Read Order]

The Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, has set aside a copy assessment order under GST for the same assessment year, holding that the repeated assessment without due process is not sustainable. The Court ordered fresh assessment subject to payment of 10% of the disputed tax amount.

The High Court held that it is not permissible to pass a second assessment order for the same assessment year and the same defect particularly when the earlier order is already under appeal.

The impugned order was set aside on the grounds that it was a duplicative order, a non-speaking order, and violative of principles of natural justice.

The petitioner, M/s Swan Enterprises, objected to an assessment order passed on 19.09.2025 under Section 74 of the GST Act, 2017 for the assessment year 2020-21. The petitioner argued that an earlier assessment order for the same year had already been passed on 25.02.2025 and a statutory appeal was pending against it.

Notwithstanding the above, a fresh assessment order for a higher amount of ₹15.04 lakh was passed without any opportunity for personal hearing.

The petitioner argued that the impugned order clearly involved duplication of proceedings and was passed ex parte without following the statutory safeguards.

It was also argued that the notices were only uploaded on the GST portal without ensuring effective service.The State fairly conceded that no personal hearing was granted and agreed to remand the case if the petitioner deposited 10% of the disputed tax.

Allowing the writ petition, the Court held that mere posting of notices on the portal cannot be said to be efficacious service in the absence of response. The authorities are required to look into alternative methods of service under Section 169 of the GST Act.

The Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the case to be remanded for fresh adjudication upon payment of 10% of the disputed tax along with the direction to defreeze the bank account of the petitioner.

Accordingly, the judgment was set aside by Justice Krishnan Ramasamy.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates