The Madras High Court has ruled that a demand under specific heads cannot be confirmed again in another assessment order if it has already been dropped in parallel proceedings. This decision was made

[22/02, 08:41] sekarreporter1: ”
Home
Products
What’s New
Query
Free Trial
Login

INR (₹)
Print
21.02.2026: WHEN A DEMAND UNDER SPECIFIC HEADS HAS ALREADY BEEN DROPPED IN PARALLEL PROCEEDINGS, THE SAME CANNOT BE CONFIRMED AGAIN IN ANOTHER ASSESSMENT ORDER: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Facts of the Case:

In this case, the petitioner challenged an Assessment Order passed for the tax period 2021–2022. The impugned order was preceded by a Show Cause Notice in Form DRC-01 dated 10.06.2025, to which the petitioner had not filed any reply. Consequently, the assessment order was passed ex parte. By the impugned order, a total demand of ₹1,61,84,127/- was confirmed comprising tax, interest, penalty, and late fee under the heads of under-declaration of output tax, excess claim of ITC, excess ITC claimed in GSTR-3B vis-à-vis GSTR-9, ineligible ITC under Section 17(5), ITC claimed from cancelled dealers/return defaulters/non-payers, and interest on late reporting of invoices.

The petitioner contended that on the very same day, the same officer had passed another order pursuant to a separate Show Cause Notice dated 23.09.2025, wherein demands relating to certain defects, particularly under-declaration of tax and excess ITC had already been dropped. Therefore, confirmation of those very demands again in the impugned order amounted to duplication. It was further submitted that the impugned order was not directly communicated to the petitioner and came to their knowledge only when recovery proceedings were initiated. The petitioner also claimed to have taken steps to rectify the discrepancies in light of the earlier proceedings.

Issue:

Whether the impugned assessment order confirming demand under certain heads was sustainable when similar demands had already been dropped in parallel proceedings initiated by a different Show Cause Notice.  Whether the ex parte assessment warranted interference on the ground of lack of opportunity and possible duplication of demand.

Held that:

The Court observed that part of the demand confirmed in the impugned order pursuant to DRC-01 dated 10.06.2025 overlapped with the subject matter of another order passed on the same day pursuant to DRC-01 dated 23.09.2025.

With respect to defect No.(i) (under-declaration of tax payable), the Court noted that the demand had already been dropped in the earlier proceedings. Therefore, there could not be duplication on that count.

Similarly, regarding defect No.(ii) (excess claim of ITC), the Court observed that it had been dropped in the parallel order dated 28.10.2025 passed pursuant to the Show Cause Notice dated 23.09.2025. However, since the petitioner had failed to respond to the Show Cause Notice dated 10.06.2025, the impugned order had been passed ex parte.

Considering the circumstances, the Court remitted the matter to the State Tax Officer for fresh adjudication on merits.

Case Name: M/s. S&S Power Switchgear Equipment Limited Versus The State Tax Commissioner, The Deputy Commissioner (ST), The Bank Manager, Kotak Bank Ltd., Chennai, The Bank Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., Chennai dated 10.02.2026

Quick Links

Home
About
Demo
GST Blogs
GST Council Decisions
Login
HSN/SAC
Taxo Prime Time
Channel Partner Search
Our Services
TAXO GST 360
HSN Rate Utility
Due Dates Calendar
GST Master Classes
Advertise With Us
Events
Institutional Licensing
Careers
Publish With Us
Partner With Us
GST Query
Call Us: +91 9540 002 184
Call Us: +91 7289 800 700
Mail ID : info@taxo.online
Query/Feedback Form
Our Experts will get back to you within 24 Hours!

Copyright © 2020 – 2026 TAXO by Astazure E Ventures Pvt. Ltd.

Privacy Policy
Terms of Use
Disclaimer
English▼

”

21.02.2026: When a demand under specific heads has already been dropped in parallel proceedings, the same cannot be confirmed again in another assessment order: Madras High Court

[22/02, 08:41] Meta AI: The Madras High Court has ruled that a demand under specific heads cannot be confirmed again in another assessment order if it has already been dropped in parallel proceedings. This decision was made in the case of M/s. S&S Power Switchgear Equipment Limited vs. The State Tax Commissioner.

The petitioner had challenged an assessment order passed for the tax period 2021-2022, which confirmed a demand of ₹1,61,84,127/-. However, the court found that part of the demand overlapped with another order passed on the same day, pursuant to a separate Show Cause Notice. The court noted that demands relating to under-declaration of tax and excess ITC had already been dropped in the earlier proceedings.

Considering the circumstances, the court remitted the matter to the State Tax Officer for fresh adjudication on merits. This decision highlights the importance of avoiding duplication of demands and ensuring that taxpayers are not subjected to multiple proceedings for the same issue. ¹

Would you like to know more about the implications of this ruling or the specific circumstances that led to the court’s decision?
[22/02, 08:41] Meta AI: The Madras High Court has ruled that a demand under specific heads cannot be confirmed again in another assessment order if it has already been dropped in parallel proceedings. This decision was made in the case of M/s. S&S Power Switchgear Equipment Limited vs. The State Tax Commissioner.

The petitioner had challenged an assessment order passed for the tax period 2021-2022, which confirmed a demand of ₹1,61,84,127/-. However, the court found that part of the demand overlapped with another order passed on the same day, pursuant to a separate Show Cause Notice. The court noted that demands relating to under-declaration of tax and excess ITC had already been dropped in the earlier proceedings.

Considering the circumstances, the court remitted the matter to the State Tax Officer for fresh adjudication on merits. This decision highlights the importance of avoiding duplication of demands and ensuring that taxpayers are not subjected to multiple proceedings for the same issue. ¹

Would you like to know more about the implications of this ruling or the specific circumstances that led to the court’s decision?