The Delhi High Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Varma v. Sales Tax Officer, Avato, Delhi vide W.P. (C) NO. 5487 OF 2024 and CM APPL. NO. 22593 OF 2024 dated 22.04.2024, has held that when identical orders are issued by different officers for the same tax period, procedural fairness requires that the proceedings be clubbed and re-adjudicated by a single officer. This ensures that the petitioner is afforded a proper opportunity to respond and that the adjudication process is conducted uniformly and fairly. 

Facts of the Case:-  The petitioner challenged orders dated 25.12.2023 and 17.12.2023, issued under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the same period July, 2017 to March, 2018. Two show cause notices (SCNs) for the same tax period (July 2017 to March 2018) resulted in nearly identical demands by different officers from the same jurisdiction. The Petitioner unaware of one of the SCNs and thus could not respond. 

The Petitioner contended that, upon discovering the first adjudicated order, the petitioner found that another identical demand had been adjudicated for the same period. 

Held:- The Court identified procedural issues with issuing identical demands for the same tax period by different officers. Both orders dated 17.12.2023 and 25.12.2023 are set aside due to procedural irregularities. Proceedings from the SCNs dated 21.09.2023 and 24.09.2023 are to be clubbed. Re-adjudication to be done by a single proper officer in accordance with law. Petitioner to file replies to the SCNs within 30 day, and then the Proper officer to adjudicate within the period prescribed by Section 75(3) of the Act.

By setting aside the previous orders and clubbing the proceedings for re-adjudication by a single officer, the Court ensures a fair process, allowing the petitioner a proper opportunity to respond.

To read the complete judgment 2024 Taxo.online 1040