Duplicate GST Demand u/s 63 and 73 Issued for Same Period: Orissa HC declares writ Infructuous as Order Rectified to ‘Nil’ by Dept [Read Order]
The Assistant Commissioner of Gunpur realized that the demand had already been raised and recovered, thus the officer rectified the S. 63 demand to Nil
![Duplicate GST Demand u/s 63 and 73 Issued for Same Period: Orissa HC declares writ Infructuous as Order Rectified to ‘Nil’ by Dept [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/08/25/2080331-gst-demand-.webp "Duplicate GST Demand u/s 63 and 73 Issued for Same Period: Orissa HC declares writ Infructuous as Order Rectified to ‘Nil’ by Dept [Read Order]")
The Orissa High Court has declared a writ petition challenging a duplicate GST (Goods and Services Tax) demand as infructuous after the authorities rectified the disputed order and reduced the demand to nil. The petitioner, Chandra Jakeshika had approached the Court against an assessment order dated November 7, 2024, issued under Section 63 of the GST Act. The order, passed by...
The Orissa High Court has declared a writ petition challenging a duplicate GST (Goods and Services Tax) demand as infructuous after the authorities rectified the disputed order and reduced the demand to nil.
The petitioner, Chandra Jakeshika had approached the Court against an assessment order dated November 7, 2024, issued under Section 63 of the GST Act. The order, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Gunupur, treated the petitioner as an unregistered taxable person and raised a demand for the tax period April 2020 to March 2021. A temporary ID was created for this purpose.
Your Ultimate Guide to India’s Latest Income Tax Laws - Click here
The petitioner, however, pointed out that the same tax period had already been assessed under Section 73 of the GST Act through an earlier order dated September 24, 2024, in GSTIN 21XXXXXXX by the State Tax Officer, CT & GST Circle, Rayagada.
In that proceeding, a demand of ₹11,06,408 had been raised on an identical issue. It was argued that by failing to verify the records and by initiating a second assessment under Section 63 for the very same period, the authority exceeded its jurisdiction, resulting in a duplicative and unlawful tax demand.
During the hearing, counsel for the GST Department conceded that the mistake had occurred. It was submitted that upon reviewing the petition, the Assistant Commissioner of Gunpur realized that the demand had already been raised and recovered under the September 2024 order issued under Section 73. Consequently, the November 2024 order passed under Section 63 was rectified, and the demand was reduced to nil.
Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman observed that the grievance of the petitioner stood redressed, leaving no further issue to be pursued. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of as infructuous, and any pending interlocutory applications were also closed.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
