The Karnataka High Court has granted interim relief to an assessee who alleged that different GST officers had initiated separate proceedings for the same tax period and that adjudication and rectification orders were passed by officers who may not have had the prescribed jurisdiction.
Justice B.M. Shyam Prasad granted liberty to the respondent authorities to complete their pleadings and place their explanation on record.
The dispute concerns GST proceedings initiated against the petitioner for the financial year 2020-21. The petitioner contended that different officers had taken up proceedings relating to the same tax period, creating overlapping adjudication processes.
Buy Now: 150 + Judgments On GST – E-Compilation For August 2026
The petitioner submitted that one of the adjudication orders was rectified after the authorities were informed that the issue was already covered by an earlier adjudication order dated November 30, 2024.
The petitioner questioned the legality of the earlier adjudication order on the ground that it had neither been digitally signed nor uploaded. It was contended that the absence of a digital signature and uploading affected the validity and enforceability of the order.
The petitioner further challenged the subsequent adjudication and rectification orders on jurisdictional grounds. According to the petitioner, these orders were passed by the Audit Wing, even though they were required to be issued by a separate prescribed officer under the applicable statutory framework.
The case thus raises issues concerning the initiation of multiple GST proceedings for the same tax period, the validity of an adjudication order that was allegedly not digitally signed or uploaded, and the authority of Audit Wing officers to pass adjudication or rectification orders.
The petitioner also informed the High Court that the rectification order referred to an adjudication arising from a third show cause notice issued for the same tax period. However, according to the petitioner’s information, adjudication pursuant to that third show cause notice had not yet been completed.
The submissions indicated that the petitioner had been subjected to more than one set of proceedings concerning the same financial year, with different officers exercising adjudicatory functions at different stages.
Additional Government Advocate K. Hema Kumar, appearing for the respondents, was required to obtain instructions from the authorities regarding the circumstances in which the disputed adjudication and rectification orders had been passed.
The High Court observed that the factual circumstances leading to the issuance of the impugned orders must be properly explained to enable a comprehensive decision in the matter.
Considering the petitioner’s submissions and the need for clarification from the GST authorities, the Court granted the interim order as prayed for. The interim protection will remain in force until the next date of hearing.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
