Facts of the Case:

In this case, initially proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for delay in filing GSTR-3B returns for the period April 2018 to March 2019. Pursuant thereto, an order dated 23.03.2024 was passed by the respondent, quantifying interest of ₹80,181/-, along with penalty, for the said delay. The petitioner accepted the demand and paid the quantified interest amount in full.

Subsequently, for the very same period and on the very same issue, another officer of the department passed a fresh order dated 26.04.2024, again quantifying interest at ₹80,183/-.

The petitioner contended that initiation of parallel proceedings and issuance of a second demand for the same default resulted in duplication of proceedings and double taxation, which is impermissible in law.

Issue:

Whether the tax authorities are justified in passing multiple orders by different officers for levy of interest for delay in filing GSTR-3B for the same tax period, resulting in duplication of demand and double taxation.

Held that:

The High Court observed that two separate orders were passed by two different authorities imposing interest for the same delay and for the same tax period.  Once the interest had already been quantified and paid by the petitioner pursuant to the earlier order, initiation of another proceeding and issuance of a fresh demand for the same liability was clearly unsustainable in law.

The Court held that such duplication of proceedings inevitably leads to double taxation, which is impermissible and contrary to settled principles of tax jurisprudence. The impugned order reflected lack of coordination within the department and resulted in harassment of the taxpayer without any authority of law.

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside.

Case Name: M/s. Sri Velavan Fireworks Represented by its Partner N. Gandheeswaran Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST) – 2, Sivakasi dated 22.01.2026.