HC Directs GST Authorities to Rectify Duplicative Notices and Orders Per New SOP.

Issue

What is the legal remedy for taxpayers who have received multiple, overlapping, and anomalous Show Cause Notices (SCNs) and orders for the same tax period, leading to duplicated demands and coercive recoveries?

Facts

For the tax periods 2018-19 and 2019-20, numerous taxpayers were subjected to a barrage of procedural anomalies by the GST department.
These anomalies included:
- An SCN being issued to one entity but the final order being passed against the petitioner.
- Multiple Orders-in-Original (OIOs) being issued for the same tax period.
- A final order being passed on a first SCN, even after a second, related SCN had been dropped (and vice-versa).
These conflicting orders led to unjust coercive recoveries and attachment of assets, even in cases where Input Tax Credit (ITC) adjustments were available.
The taxpayers filed multiple writ petitions challenging the validity of these duplicative and contradictory proceedings.

Decision

The High Court, rather than quashing each individual notice, adopted a pragmatic solution based on a new government circular.
The Advocate General presented a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), issued via a circular dated October 14, 2025, which invoked the department’s power of rectification under Section 161 of the CGST Act to resolve such anomalies.
The SOP allows officers to rectify these errors, such as deleting duplicated tax demands, within six months, as these are considered “errors apparent on the record.”
The High Court disposed of the writ petitions by directing the proper officers to apply this SOP and rectify the impugned notices and orders in accordance with the law, within a reasonable time, and with due intimation to the taxpayers.
Any issues that are not amenable to rectification under this SOP can be pursued by the taxpayers before the appropriate legal forum.

Key Takeaways

Rectification Power (Section 161) Used to Resolve Anomalies: The case establishes that the power to rectify “errors apparent on the record” under Section 161 is a potent tool that can be used to withdraw or correct duplicative SCNs and orders, which are considered “accidental slips or omissions” under the second proviso to Section 161.
New SOP Provides a Path for Resolution: The introduction of a formal SOP gives taxpayers a clear path to resolve such issues directly with the department, rather than resorting to writ petitions for every instance of a duplicate notice.
Judicial Endorsement of Administrative Solution: The court endorsed the department’s administrative solution, viewing it as a consonant and proper use of the rectification power to clean up the system.
Preservation of Further Rights: The court’s order explicitly preserves the taxpayer’s right to approach other legal forums (like the Appellate Authority) for any residual issues that cannot be resolved through this rectification process.

HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA

Sri Venkateshwara Dairy Products

Assistant Commissioner ST

Aparesh Kumar Singh, CJ.
and G.M. MOHIUDDIN, J.

W.P.Nos.20731, 24077, 27416, 28893 and 30267 of 2025

OCTOBER 15, 2025

K.P. Amarnath Reddy, Adv. for the Petitioner.

ORDER

1. Mr. K.P.Amarnath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.20731 and 24077 of 2025, appears through video conference.

Mr. G.R.S.Akhileswar, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.27416 of 2025.

Mr. Srinarayan Toshniwal, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.28893 of 2025.

Mr. Narendra Dave, learned counsel representing M/s. Lakshmi Kumaran & Sridharan, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.30267 of 2025.

Mr. A. Sudarshan Reddy, learned Advocate General representing Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax appears for the respondents.

2. All these four writ petitions were tagged together on account of similarity of grievances raised by the tax payers in respect of adjudication proceedings under the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the TGST Act’), Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CGST Act’) or Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act by issuance of multiple show cause notices followed by multiple orders passed for the same tax period. In W.P.No.27416 of 2025 also, there were multiple show cause notices but with the distinction that the second show cause notice was in the name of some other company M/s. Anand Enterprises (Page No.35) for the same financial year 2019-20, but assessment order-in-original was passed in the name of the petitioner company. In this case, it is also the grievance of the petitioner that all tax dues have been paid. Out of the total liability i.e., Rs.12,63,032/- arising out of all these three orders, an amount of Rs. 12,19,582/- has been recovered through Input Tax Credit (ITC) from the Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL). Despite that, petitioner’s Bank account was attached in Garnishee proceedings dated 28.03.2025.

3. In W.P.No.20731 of 2025, taking note of the grievance of the petitioner, the following order was passed on 19.08.2025:

“Mr.K.P.Amarnath Reddy, learned counsel appears for the petitioner.

Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax appears for respondents No. 1 to 3.

In the instant case, respondent No.1 – Assistant Commissioner (ST), Panjagutta -1 Circle, i.e. assessing officer, has issued three show cause notices dated 07.06.2022, 12.01.2024 and 31.01.2024 for the same tax period 2018-2019 under Section 73 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Three separate Orders-in-original arising out of the three show cause notices have been passed on the same date 30.04.2024 (Annexure P2) imposing different tax liabilities for the same financial year.

Petitioner carried one of the assessment orders dated 30.04.2024 arising out of the show cause notice dated 31.01.2024 in appeal (Annexure P3), which has been rejected by the appellate authority, vide order dated 11.07.2025 on grounds of delay.

The petitioner has assailed the three show cause notices and three Orders-in-original and also the Order-in-appeal concerning the same tax period. He has taken inter alia number of grounds, such as the orders were unsigned, multiple show cause notices could not have been issued for the same financial year. However, the petitioner has not submitted any reply to the show cause notices. Separate Orders-in-original have been passed by the same assessing officer -respondent No.1 assessing different tax liabilities, which is untenable in law.

The appellate authority has dismissed the appeal on ground of delay without appreciating the plea raised by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the respondents – State is allowed two weeks time to obtain instructions and file counter.

Let Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, I Floor, Commercial Tax Office, Near MJ Market Road, Opposite Gandhi Bhavan, Nampally -500001, be impleaded as respondent No.4 in the instant writ petition.

Let the counter-affidavit be filed by duly vetted respondent No.4 explaining as to how multiple show cause notices and multiple Orders-in-original could be passed for one financial year by imposing different tax liabilities upon the petitioner.

Respondent No.1 – Assistant Commissioner (ST), Panjagutta -1 Circle, should appear on the next date of hearing along with records of the assessment proceedings and copies thereof as certified to be true for perusal of the Court.

List the matter on 08.09.2025.

In the meantime, no coercive steps be taken pursuant to the impugned demand raised arising out of three Orders-in-original dated 30.04.2024.”

4. In W.P.No.24077 of 2025 also, similar order was passed on 18.08.2025, which is as under:

“Learned counsel Sri K.P.Amarnath Reddy appears for the petitioner.

Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, appears for the respondents.

In respect of the tax period 2019-2020, a show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 was issued under Section 73 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”), on 29.05.2024, which is Annexure P-2. Another show cause notice for the same tax period was issued by the same Assessing Officer – respondent No.1, under the same provision on 31.05.2024, which is Annexure P-3. The proceedings initiated under the show cause notice dated 31.05.2024 ended up in dropping of the demand by order dated 29.08.2024 passed by respondent No.1. The same Assessing Officer, however, proceeded to adjudicate in respect of the first show cause notice dated 29.05.2024 issued by him against the same tax period and passed an order-in-original dated 30.08.2024, which is Annexure P-6, imposing total tax liability and penalty of Rs.18,64,922.65. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the second order, preferred a belated appeal before respondent No.2 on 14.03.2025, which was dismissed on grounds of delay vide order dated 18.07.2025, which is Annexure P-10. The order-in-original dated 30.08.2024 and the appellate order dated 18.07.2025 are under challenge by the aggrieved petitioner, inter alia, on a number of grounds.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the impugned order imposing a demand could not have been passed after the show cause notice in respect of the same tax period was dropped.

The aforesaid sequence of dates relating to two proceedings for the same tax period by the same Assessing Officer presents total piquant and irreconcilable position. If one of the proceedings were dropped by an order-in-original, though arising out of the second show cause notice of the same period, whether a fresh order-in-original imposing liability arising out of the first show cause notice for the same tax period could have been passed? If the order-in-original dated 30.08.2024 imposing tax liability could not have been passed, the question of preferring an appeal against that order would not have arisen. The appeal has been dismissed on grounds of delay, which the petitioner has sought to explain on account of two proceedings leading to opposite results happening due to non-application of mind of the Assessing Officer.

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, we are of the view that respondent No.1 is required to explain such an anomaly.

The other issue which may arise is whether is it open for the revisional authority to exercise power under Section 108 of the Act.

It is, therefore, necessary to implead the Commissioner of State Tax i.e., the revisional authority, in the array of respondents. Let him be added as respondent No.4.

The counter affidavit to be filed should be vetted by respondent No.4.

The Assessing Officer – respondent No.1, should appear with the records of the assessment proceedings in respect of the tax period 2019-2020 and along with two copies as certified to be true thereof for perusal of the Court.

The garnishee notice dated 11.11.2024 has been issued before expiry of the appeal period.

Two weeks time is allowed to the learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax to file the counter affidavit, as prayed for.

List this case on 08.09.2025 by reflecting the name of the learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax for the respondents in the cause list.

In the meantime, there shall be stay on the garnishee notice issued in Form GST DRC-13 dated 11.11.2024.”

5. In W.P.No.30267 of 2025, when the matter was taken up on 07.10.2025, taking note of the grievance of the petitioner, the following order was recorded:

“Sri Narendra Dave, learned counsel appears for M/s. Lakshmi Kumaran & Sridharan, learned counsel for petitioner.

Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax appears for respondents.

In the instant Writ Petition, the impugned order-in-original dated 30.04.2024 passed by respondent No.1, Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Hyderabad, confirming a demand of Rs.30,23,592/- for the Financial Year 2018-19 and order-in-appeal dated 23.08.2025 passed by respondent No.3, Appellate Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Hyderabad, confirming the same, have been challenged. Arrear Notice dated 23.09.2025 issued by respondent No.1 for recovery of tax arrears is also under challenge.

The impugned proceedings have been challenged inter alia on a number of grounds, the primary one being that the present proceedings are hit by the principles of res judicata as for the same tax period, earlier proceedings have been dropped vide order-in-original dated 02.08.2023 without any challenge thereto by the Department in appeal. Apart from the above grounds, petitioner has also questioned the order-in-original on the ground of limitation as it has been passed on the last date. The show cause notice dated 31.01.2024 is not in compliance with Section 73(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. He has also taken a plea that the Assessing Officer did not grant any personal hearing and the impugned order is cryptic in nature.

Learned counsel for the State Tax seeks time to obtain instructions.

Let this matter along with Writ Petition No.24077 of 2025 be listed on 15.10.2025.”

6. When this issue was taken up with the respondents, learned Advocate General assured this Court that the Department is contemplating to frame a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) where these anomalies like issuance of multiple show cause notices and passing of multiple orders can be rectified as per the provisions of the TGST Act. Today, learned Advocate General has produced the circular bearing No.CCT’s Ref.No.LIV(2)/33/2025 dated 14.10.2025 issued by Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Telangana. The respondent Department has proposed a mechanism under Section 161 of the TGST Act, which is for rectification of errors apparent on the face of record. The SOP is also extracted hereunder:

“Standard Operating Procedure (SOP):

1) The officers concerned can carry out rectification of any kind including rectifying the multiple orders for the same cause of action/issue, period and taxable event as prescribed U/Sec. 161 of the TGST Act, 2017 within six (6) months from the date of issue of decision or order or notice or certificate or any other document.

2) The officers concerned can rectify the multiple orders for the same cause of action/issue, period and taxable event, by also adhering to 2^nd proviso of Section 161 of the TGST Act, 2017.

3) The officers concerned have to delete the tax portion in the second or subsequent order for the repeated issues and retain the component which is not covered in the earlier proceedings and arrive at a single comprehensive net tax liability under SGST, CGST & IGST separately.

4) The officers concerned shall also take note of the fact that in the event of the second or subsequent order containing more tax liability and gets rectified by deletion of tax pertaining to repeated issues, the same shall be brought to the notice of the revisional authority for initiation of proceedings U/Sec. 108 of the TGST Act, 2017, since the first order is prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

5) The officers concerned shall also take note of the fact that in the event of the second or subsequent order containing more tax liability and gets rectified by deletion of tax pertaining to repeated issue, the same shall be brought to the notice of the undersigned for initiation of proceedings U/Sec. 107(2) of the TGST Act, 2017, since the first order is prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

6) The officer concerned need not exercise powers U/Sec. 161 as stated supra, if the second and subsequent orders are distinct in nature, which are unconnected with the first order.

7) The officer concerned may also intimate the taxpayers with regard to the multiplicity of notices/orders for the same cause of action/issue, period and taxable event in order to rectify the same U/Sec. 161 of the TGST Act, 2017 in addition to the information already placed in the public domain.”

7. Learned Advocate General submits that the issues which have been raised by the petitioners in these cases are such which the proper officer on his own motion or being brought to his notice by the affected person also can rectify. According to learned Advocate General, these errors would fall under second proviso to Section 161 of the TGST Act wherein the period of limitation of six months would not apply. It is submitted that the proper officer in these cases would undertake the exercise of rectification in accordance with law. Petitioners would be intimated of such exercise so that they can provide necessary information and/or submission to enable the officer to exercise his jurisdiction for rectification of the errors which may have occurred in passing assessment orders in individual cases.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners agreed to the suggestion that the grievances relating to issuance of multiple show cause notices or orders covering same tax period are amenable to rectification under Section 161 of the TGST Act. They also agree that the SOP would enable the petitioners or other such affected tax payers to approach the proper officer for rectification of such errors.

9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of the stand of the Department, which appears to be in consonance with the power of rectification conferred upon the proper officer under Section 161 of the TGST Act, we deem it proper to dispose of the writ petitions to enable the concerned proper officers to undertake the exercise of rectification of the impugned notices/orders, in accordance with law, within a reasonable time with due intimation to the assessees. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the circular dated 14.10.2025 has also been uploaded on the GST Portal/Commercial Taxes Portal of the Department so that persons aggrieved with similar grievances can approach the proper officer for rectification of such errors, omissions, etc., in the notices or orders issued by the concerned proper officer, in accordance with law.

10. The writ petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Needless to say, upon such rectification, if any of the petitioners have any grievances which are not amenable to the power of rectification under Section 161 of the TGST Act, it would be open for them to raise before appropriate forum in an appropriate proceeding. In case the rectification of the order leads to refund, if any, in favour of any one of these assessees, the proper officer would take appropriate decision in that regard also as per law. There shall be no order as to costs.

11. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.