Facts of the Case:

In this case, the petitioner challenged an adjudication order dated 11.03.2026 passed under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the Financial Year 2023-24. The dispute arose after an earlier assessment order dated 30.05.2024 had been set aside by the High Court through a common order dated 25.07.2024 on the ground that the mandatory personal hearing under Section 75(4) had not been granted.

While remanding the matter, the Court had specifically directed the Assessing Officer to provide a personal hearing, consider the petitioner’s reply to the existing show cause notice, and thereafter pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with law. Contrary to these directions, instead of adjudicating the original show cause notice after granting personal hearing, the Assessing Officer issued a fresh show cause notice and thereafter passed a fresh adjudication order dated 11.03.2026.

The petitioner contended that the officer had acted beyond the scope of the remand order, failed to consider its reply properly, and adopted an impermissible procedure by initiating fresh proceedings. The department argued that the subsequent show cause notice was substantially similar to the earlier one and, therefore, no prejudice had been caused to the petitioner.

Issue:

Whether, after a remand order directing the Assessing Officer to adjudicate the existing show cause notice after granting personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the GST Act, the Assessing Officer could issue a fresh show cause notice and pass a fresh adjudication order instead of complying with the specific directions contained in the remand order.

Held That: 

The High Court held that the Assessing Officer had acted contrary to and beyond the scope of the earlier remand order passed by the Court. It observed that the previous order had unequivocally confined the adjudication to the original show cause notice after granting the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing and considering the reply already filed. Instead of complying with those directions, the Assessing Officer initiated an entirely fresh round of proceedings by issuing a second show cause notice and passing a fresh adjudication order.

The Court held that such a course was impermissible and amounted to overreaching and circumventing the binding judicial directions issued in the earlier writ proceedings. The question whether the two show cause notices were identical or whether any prejudice had been caused was held to be immaterial, since the officer was duty-bound to act strictly within the framework of the remand order.

Consequently, the impugned adjudication order dated 11.03.2026 was set aside and the matter was remanded once again to the Assessing Officer with a direction to adjudicate the original show cause notice after granting personal hearing and duly considering the petitioner’s reply, in accordance with law.

Case Name: M/s. B.K. Steels And The Assistant Commissioner (State Tax), Charminar Circle, Hyderabad, and another dated 11.06.2026