The Madras High Court in the case of CROWN METAL SCRAPS, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER N. DINESH RAJ VERSUS THE DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER – 2, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST), THE BRANCH MANAGER, HDFC BANK LTD., THIRUCHENCODU vide Case No. No.- W. P. (MD) No. 16183 of 2025 And W. M. P. (MD) Nos. 12257 & 12259 of 2025 dated 16.06.2025, has held that once proceedings for a particular tax period are concluded by the department as indicated by issuing Form GST DRC-05, the same taxable person cannot be subjected again to fresh proceedings for the same cause and period, unless the original order is set aside or fresh grounds emerge that were not part of the earlier proceedings.

Facts of the Case: In this case, the petitioner had challenged an assessment order dated 27.08.2024 for the tax period 2019–20. The Petitioner contended that a prior order had already been passed for the same period on 04.10.2023 in Form GST DRC-05, indicating conclusion of proceedings under Section 74. Also, the petitioner did not participate in the adjudication of the later proceedings initiated via DRC-01 dated 20.12.2023, which culminated in the impugned order dated 27.08.2024.

Issue: Whether the second assessment order dated 27.08.2024 amounts to double jeopardy (i.e. subjecting a person to multiple proceedings or punishments for the same offense) for the same tax period and is thus liable to be quashed?

Held That: The Court observed that Form GST DRC-05, issued earlier on 04.10.2023, signifies conclusion of proceedings under Section 74. The second order dated 27.08.2024 was passed without the petitioner’s participation and without clarifying the overlap with the earlier concluded proceedings.

The Court noted that such overlapping assessment for the same period creates ambiguity and may amount to double jeopardy. This overlapping of proceedings for the same liability period is what the Court recognized as potential “double jeopardy” — i.e., punishing or adjudicating the taxpayer twice for the same alleged default, which is not permissible under tax law or general principles of natural justice.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter to the Assessing Authority to pass a fresh order on merits, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and justifying the basis for initiating a second round of proceedings for the same tax period.

To read the complete judgment 2025 Taxo.online 1271