Issue: Whether the tax authority can include in a fresh Section 73 demand order the same amount for the same tax period that was already adjudicated and recovered under an earlier order, thereby subjecting the assessee to double taxation.

Held that: The Court observed that the record clearly established that the demand of ₹21,38,338/- for the period April–September 2021 had already been adjudicated in the earlier proceedings under Section 73(9) of the OGST Act vide order dated 01.12.2022 and recovered from the petitioner during pendency of appeal. In the impugned order dated 11.04.2025, the same demand amount was again incorporated while raising a fresh demand of ₹51,39,498/- for the period April 2021–March 2022. The State’s counsel candidly admitted that such duplication had occurred.

The Court held that once a demand for a specific period has been adjudicated and recovered, the same cannot be re-opened or included in a subsequent adjudication for an overlapping period unless the earlier order is set aside in accordance with law. Re-assessment or inclusion of the same amount in a fresh demand would result in impermissible double taxation, which is contrary to the settled principles of fiscal jurisprudence.

The Court quashed impugned order to the extent it covered the already adjudicated demand.

Case Name: M/s SAI SITARAM CONSTRUCTION v. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CT & GST & ANR. dated 11.08.2025

To read the complete judgment 2025 Taxo.online 1787