Issuing a Second SCN for the Same Assessment Period Violates

Issuing a Second SCN for the Same Assessment Period Violates Prior High Court Remand Directions

Issue

Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) can legally issue a second Show Cause Notice (SCN) and pass a fresh assessment order for the same financial year after the High Court specifically remanded the matter to adjudicate only the original, first SCN following a breach of natural justice.

Facts

The petitioner previously challenged an assessment order for the period 2022–23 via a writ petition.
In a prior order dated 25 July 2024, the High Court set aside that initial assessment due to a breach of the mandatory personal hearing requirement.
The High Court remanded the matter back to the AO with explicit directions to adjudicate the original SCN after giving the petitioner a personal hearing and permitting them to file a reply.
Following the remand, the AO ignored the first SCN and instead issued a completely new, second SCN for the same assessment year.
The AO then proceeded to pass a fresh adjudication order based on this second SCN, which the petitioner challenged in the current writ petition.

Decision

Remand Scope Violated: The High Court held that the prior remand directions strictly obligated the AO to adjudicate only the original, first SCN after affording a compliant personal hearing and considering the reply.
Issuance of Second SCN Impermissible: The Court ruled that issuing a second SCN for the same assessment year without adjudicating the first one was entirely impermissible.
Overreaching Judicial Order: The AO’s actions in bypassing the original SCN amounted to overreaching the definitive directions issued in the prior writ order.
Adjudication Order Quashed: The High Court set aside the fresh adjudication order, confining the scope of post-remand proceedings exclusively to the first SCN.
Matter Remanded Again: The matter was remanded back to the AO to pass a fresh decision strictly on the basis of the first SCN, ensuring a proper personal hearing and due consideration of the petitioner’s response.

Key Takeaways

Strict Adherence to Remand Scope: An Assessing Officer cannot expand or alter the scope of a high court’s remand order. If a case is sent back to decide a specific notice, the officer has no authority to issue a new notice for the same period.
Prohibition on Multiple SCNs: The department cannot iteratively issue multiple notices under Section 74 for the same assessment period to cover up procedural lapses or create parallel litigations once a court has frozen the boundaries of the dispute.
Judicial Discipline: Passing an order outside the specific mandate of a high court’s directions constitutes administrative overreach and renders the final tax demand void, ensuring the matter must be remanded back to correct the deviation.

HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA

B.K. Steels

Assistant Commissioner (State Tax)

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ.
and G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J.

WRIT PETITION No. 17499 of 2026

JUNE 15, 2026

Goondla Venkateswarlu, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner. Swaroop Oorilla, Ld. Special Govt. Pleader for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. Sri Goondla Venkateswarlu, learned counsel appears for petitioner.

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

2. The impugned proceedings relate to Financial Year 2022-23 in respect of which after the remand by this Court vide common order dated 25.07.2024 in Writ Petition Nos.18654 and 18766 of 2024, a fresh show cause notice was issued leading to passing of the order dated 11.03.2026 under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act’). The text of the order passed in those Writ Petitions is extracted hereunder as it has some bearing on the outcome of the present Writ Petition.

“3. Learned counsel for the parties fairly admitted that a right of personal hearing as envisaged under Section 75(4) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 has not been provided to the petitioner before passing Assessment Order and therefore, it is agreed that the Assessment Order may be set aside and the Assessing Officer may be directed to provide personal hearing to the petitioner and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

4. In view of the consensus arrived at, Assessment Order dated 30.05.2024 is set aside. The matter is restored back in the file of Assessing Officer, who shall give personal hearing to the petitioner on 08.08.2024 at 11:30 A.M. or any other date as per Assessing Officer’s convenience. For this purpose, no fresh notice will be required to be issued to the petitioner. The petitioner will be at liberty to raise all possible grounds during personal hearing.

5. The petitioner may file reply to the show cause notice within 7 days from today.

The Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs.”

3. What has happened after the remand by this Court is that the Assessing Officer without passing a fresh assessment order after compliance of the personal hearing requirement as per liberty granted by this Court has issued a second show cause notice and decided vide impugned order dated 11.03.2026.

4. Learned counsel for the rival parties have addressed us on the permissibility of the Assessing Officer to undertake an exercise despite an order passed by this Court in effect confining the adjudication to the show cause notice issued upon the petitioner.

5. The impugned order covers Financial Year 2022-23 which was the subject matter of Writ Petition No.18766 of 2024.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a reply of the petitioner was not duly considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that in the other connected Writ Petition No.18654 of 2024 which relates to the Financial Year 2023-24, similar action has been taken by issuance of a fresh show cause notice and an adjudication order passed thereupon confirming the demand on grounds which were not taken in the show cause notice. It is submitted that vide order dated 11.06.2026 in W.P.No.17540 of 2026, this Court has set aside the fresh assessment order in W.P.No.18654 of 2024 while granting liberty to the Proper Officer to pass order afresh on the first show cause notice. Similar order may be passed in the present writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that there is no difference in the show cause notice issued at the first instance and the show cause notice upon which the adjudication has been made after the remand by this Court. As such, in effect, the petitioner has not suffered any prejudice.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

9. Bereft of getting into the details of ingredients which have been taken to invoke the provision of Section 74 of the Act in the first show cause notice or the notice issued for the same Financial Year at the second instance after the remand leading to the impugned adjudication, we are of the considered view that in the light of the directions passed by this Court vide common order dated 25.07.2024 in the Writ Petitions referred to hereinabove, the Assessing Officer was obliged to adjudicate on the show cause notice after giving a personal hearing to the petitioner and upon consideration of any reply furnished by him. The course adopted by the Assessing Officer to issue a second show cause notice without carrying out the adjudication proceeding was something which was not permissible in view of the directions passed by the Court in the previous round of litigation. Such a course on the part of the Assessing Officer would in effect amount to overreaching the order of this Court, which cannot be permitted. In similar circumstances, vide order dated 11.06.2026 in W.P.No.17540 of 2026, this Court has remanded the matter to the Proper Officer in W.P.No.18654 of 2024 in the case of the same petitioner. Therefore, on this legal ground, we are constrained to interfere in the impugned adjudication order by setting it aside while giving an opportunity once again to the Assessing Officer to pass an order on the basis of the first show cause notice and compliance of the personal hearing after due consideration of the reply furnished by the petitioner, in accordance with law.

10. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer.

11. The instant Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

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