A taxpayer seeking relief against overlapping tax proceedings must demonstrate both an identical liability and an identical demand; if a mistake is apparent, the remedy under S.161 for rectification is available within six months.

##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

WRIT PETITION No.13026 of 2026

Dated: 27.04.2026 Between:

M/s. Divyashakti Chemicals …Petitioner

and The Additional Commissioner of Central Tax,

Ranga CGST Commissionerate, H.No.1-98/7/43, VIP Hills, Jaihind Enclave,

Madhapur, Hyderabad - 500081,

and 5 others.

…Respondents

ORDER:

Learned counsel Sri Md. Shabaz appears for the petitioner

through video conferencing.

Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for

Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, appears for respondents

No.1 to 4 and 6.

2

2. The petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled on 28.12.2019. The show cause notice bearing No.138/2024-25 was issued by respondent No.1 on 23.09.2024 alleging wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit without actual supply. The proposed demand and penalties were issued under Section 122(1)(ii) and 122(1)(vii) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”). The order-in-original confirming the demand was passed on 18.03.2025 and DRC-07 is dated 20.03.2025. In the present proceeding, the petitioner has assailed the order-in-original dated 10.12.2025 arising out of the show cause notice dated 19.06.2025 for the same period of January 2019 to November 2019 alleging that on identical allegations, penalty was proposed and confirmed under Section 122(1)(ii) and 122(1)(vii) of the Act. Against the order-in-original dated 18.03.2025, the petitioner has already filed a statutory appeal on 28.06.2025, which is pending. Against the order-in-original dated 10.12.2025, the present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, on the ground that it is in teeth of Section 6(2)(b) of the Act. The petitioner has also taken the ground of non-issuance of mandatory show cause notice under Rule 142(1A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The petitioner has further assailed the impugned order-in-original on the ground that it

3

would be a clear case of duplication and abuse of process of law and

also in violation of the principles of natural justice.

3. In the second proceedings, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has not participated. In the decision relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East, (2025) 33 Centax 222 (SC), the Apex Court has, under the guidelines laid down at paragraph 97 at sub-paragraph (b), observed that when an assessee becomes aware that the matter being inquired into or investigated is already the subject of an inquiry or investigation by another authority, the assessee shall forthwith inform, in writing, the authority that has initiated the subsequent inquiry or investigation. Paragraph 96 summarises the conclusion on the issue of parallel or overlap proceedings. Sub-paragraph (viii) thereof prescribes that where any two proceedings initiated by the Department seek to assess or recover an identical or a partial overlap in the tax liability, deficiency or obligation arising from any particular contravention, the bar of Section 6(2)(b) would be immediately attracted. Sub-paragraph (x) prescribes the twofold test for determining whether a subject matter is “same” it entails, first, determining if an authority has already proceeded on an identical

4

liability of tax or alleged offence by the assessee on the same facts and

secondly, if the demand or relief sought is identical.

4. Section 161 of the Act, on the other hand, prescribes the rectification of errors apparent on the face of record by the authority who has passed or issued any decision or order or notice or certificate or any other document, 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. The time limit for seeking rectification