OCTOBER 22, 2025

Double Jeopardy, GST Style - SOP to Delete Duplicate Demands

By Vijay Kumar

THE GST Department discovered a new growth area: issuing multiple orders for the same tax period - sometimes to the wrong entity, sometimes after the dues were already paid, and always with a flair for duplication.

In Hyderabad, taxpayers discovered the charming chaos that follows when precision goes on holiday - multiple show-cause notices, overlapping assessment orders for the same financial year, duplicated tax demands, and even garnishee attachments despite electronic credits already eliminating most liability.

The Hon'ble Deputy Commissioner of State Tax confirmed a demand of Rs. 30,23,592/- for the Financial Year 2018-19 on a Company called VCS Constructions by Order-in-Original dated 30.04.2024. The learned Appellate Joint Commissioner of State Tax was more than pleased to confirm the same by Order-in-appeal dated 23.08.2025.

The assessee challenged the Order-in-Original and the Order-in-appeal on several grounds in the Telangana High Court by Writ Petition No. 30267 of 2025:- 2025-TIOL-1693-HC-TELANGANA

1. That the proceedings are hit by the principles of res judicata as for the same tax period, earlier proceedings have been dropped vide Order-in Original dated 02.08.2023 and was not challenged by the Department in appeal.

2.That the show cause notice and order-in-original are hit by limitation.

3. That the Assessing Officer did not grant any personal hearing and the impugned order is cryptic in nature.

The case was last listed in the High Court on 15.10.2025. This is not a solitary case. There were four writ petitions on the same issue before the High Court and they were tagged together on account of similarity - issuance of multiple show cause notices followed by multiple orders passed for the same tax period.

In W.P. No. 27416 of 2025 also, there were multiple show cause notices but with the distinction that the second show cause notice was in the name of some other company, but assessment order-in-original was passed in the name of the petitioner. In this case, all tax dues have been paid. Out of the total liability i.e., Rs. 12,63,032/-, an amount of Rs. 12,19,582/- has been recovered through Input Tax Credit (ITC) from the Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL). Despite that, petitioner's Bank account was attached on 28.03.2025.

They attached a bank account for liabilities that had already been swallowed by the electronic ledger!

The Court directed the Principal Secretary to the Government to file a counter affidavit explaining as to how multiple show cause notices and multiple Orders-in-original could be passed for one financial year.

Earlier, the Advocate General had assured the Court that the Department was contemplating to frame a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) where these anomalies like issuance of multiple show cause notices and passing of multiple orders can be rectified as per the provisions of the TGST Act.

On 15.10.2025, the Advocate General produced the circular dated 14.10.2025 issued by Commercial Taxes Department of Telangana. The Department has proposed a mechanism under Section 161 of the TGST Act, which is for rectification of errors apparent on the face of record.

Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) stated

1) The officers concerned can carry out rectification of any kind including rectifying the multiple orders for the same cause of action/issue, period and taxable event as prescribed U/Sec. 161 of the TGST Act, 2017 within six (6) months from the date of issue of decision or order or notice or certificate or any other document.

2) The officers concerned can rectify the multiple orders for the same cause of action/issue, period and taxable event, by also adhering to 2nd proviso of Section 161 of the TGST Act, 2017.

3) The officers concerned have to delete the tax portion in the second or subsequent order for the repeated issues and retain the component which is not covered in the earlier proceedings and arrive at a single comprehensive net tax liability under SGST, CGST & IGST separately.

4) The officers concerned shall also take note of the fact that in the event of the second or subsequent order containing more tax liability and gets rectified by deletion of tax pertaining to repeated issues, the same shall be brought to the notice of the revisional authority for initiation of proceedings U/Sec. 108 of the TGST Act, 2017, since the first order is prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

5) The officers concerned shall also take note of the fact that in the event of the second or subsequent order containing more tax liability and gets rectified by deletion of tax pertaining to repeated issue, the same shall be brought to the notice of the undersigned for initiation of proceedings U/Sec. 107(2) of the TGST Act, 2017, since the first order is prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

6) The officer concerned need not exercise powers U/Sec. 161 as stated supra, if the second and subsequent orders are distinct in nature, which are unconnected with the first order.

7) The officer concerned may also intimate the taxpayers with regard to the multiplicity of notices/orders for the same cause of action/issue, period and taxable event in order to rectify the same U/Sec.161 of the TGST Act, 2017 in addition to the information already placed in the public domain.

The Advocate General submitted that the issues which have been raised by the petitioners in these cases are such which the proper officer on his own motion or being brought to his notice by the affected person also can rectify. According to him these errors would fall under second proviso to Section 161 of the TGST Act wherein the period of limitation of six months would not apply. It is submitted that the proper officer in these cases would undertake the exercise of rectification in accordance with law. Petitioners would be intimated of such exercise so that they can provide necessary information and/or submission to enable the officer to exercise his jurisdiction for rectification of the errors which may have occurred in passing assessment orders in individual cases.

Section 161 reads as:

161. Rectification of errors apparent on the face of record.- Without prejudice to the provisions of section 160, and notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, any authority, who has passed or issued any decision or order or notice or certificate or any other document, may rectify any error which is apparent on the face of record in such decision or order or notice or certificate or any other document, either on its own motion or where such error is brought to its notice by any officer appointed under this Act or an officer appointed under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act or by the affected person within a period of three months from the date of issue of such decision or order or notice or certificate or any other document, as the case may be:

Provided that no such rectification shall be done after a period of six months from the date of issue of such decision or order or notice or certificate or any other document:

Provided further that the said period of six months shall not apply in such cases where the rectification is purely in the nature of correction of a clerical or arithmetical error, arising from any accidental slip or omission:

Provided also that where such rectification adversely affects any person, the principles of natural justice shall be followed by the authority carrying out such rectification.

Section 161 allows officers to rectify errors "apparent on the face of record" - which, in this case, includes the department's own face.

The counsel for the petitioners agreed to the suggestion that the grievances relating to issuance of multiple show cause notices or orders covering same tax period are amenable to rectification under Section 161 of the TGST Act. They also agree that the SOP would enable the petitioners or other such affected taxpayers to approach the proper officer for rectification of such errors.

There was nothing further to decide and the High Court directed that in case the rectification of the order leads to refund, if any, in favour of any one of these assessees, the proper officer would take appropriate decision in that regard as per law.

It takes a court to tell the department to tidy its desk; the desk obliges with a circular.

It is a welcome sign that a State GST Department has come forward to positively sort out an issue raised by taxpayers and even issued a SoP and no less a counsel than the Advocate General appeared for the State and assured the High Court that the problem would be amicably settled.

This is bureaucratic poetry. But the litigatory route is costly and slow. A successful writ may return a ledger to its rightful shape months later. In the meantime, garnishees bite, reputations fray and working capital runs for cover.

This episode is deliciously absurd: the tax office replicated notices like an overeager photocopier, then issued a manual to un-replicate them. The department invents work for litigators and then asks litigators to step aside while it cleans up.

The SOP is an institutional apology with action attached. Better still, it's a taxman's broom: efficient, plain, and capable of sweeping away duplicates without much fanfare. The irony is judicially produced administrative efficiency. Courts nudged, the department obliged.

The SOP is not a reform. It's a self-correcting Ctrl+Z for a department that had been hitting Ctrl+C too often. Telangana's SOP isn't just a fix - it's a footnote to the GST story we have all lived through - one where taxpayers are expected to be precise, but departments can be prolific.

Do you think I am suggesting something like this for the Central GST? Not at all, for the simple reason that the Central GST is more organised and less chaotic. Multiple notices and orders on the same case happen very rarely in the Central GST.

Timely rectification is not just administrative hygiene - it's litigation prevention in its most elegant form. A well-timed correction saves the taxpayer a writ, the officer a blush, and the court a headache. If done promptly and with principle, rectification makes litigation the exception, not the inevitability. After all, errors are inevitable - what matters is whether they're corrected before they become case law.