Considering the submissions, the bench found that the failure to reply to one of the show cause notices was due to genuine confusion caused by the issuance of two notices for the same AY by different officers.

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court directed to issue fresh orders on matters where two Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) notices were issued by the different GST officers for the same Assessment year leading to non-reply to one Show Cause Notice ( SCN ).  Justice Krishnan Ramamsamy noted that this confusion was understandable and not an intentional omission by the petitioner. The petitioner’s counsel, M/s.C.Rekha Kumari submitted that the order dated 18.12.2023 should be set aside as it was passed without providing an opportunity for a personal hearing. With respect to the order dated 19.12.2023, it was contended that the demand raised by this order was a duplication of an earlier demand issued by another authority for the same assessment year. This duplication caused confusion, as the petitioner did not file a reply to one of the show cause notices, believing it to be a repeat demand. Further, the petitioner’s bank account had already been attached, and the entire tax amount recovered, which led the petitioner to believe that no further proceedings were necessary. The petitioner thus sought an opportunity to file a proper reply and be heard before any further action was taken. Complete Draft Replies of GST ITC Related Notices, Click Here Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, representing the GST department – respondents clarified that the order dated 18.12.2023, challenged in W.P.No.3051 of 2024, had been withdrawn by the authorities on 12.02.2024. This withdrawal was due to the fact that two different officers had mistakenly issued separate demands for the same assessment year and defect. However, regarding the second writ petition (W.P.No.3053 of 2024), the counsel contended that the show cause notice was properly issued, but the petitioner had failed to respond, which led to the issuance of the impugned order. The tax amount had already been recovered, and the impugned order was passed based on the petitioner’s non-reply. Hearing both sides, the court noted that the petitioner’s failure to reply to one of the show cause notices was due to genuine confusion caused by the issuance of two notices for the same assessment year by different officers. Additionally, since the entire tax amount had already been recovered through the attachment of the petitioner’s bank account, there was no outstanding tax liability at the time the orders were passed. Complete Draft Replies of GST ITC Related Notices, Click Here The Court also took note of a letter dated 12.02.2024 from the Assessment Officer, State Tax Department, which confirmed the withdrawal of the demand challenged in W.P.No.3051 of 2024. As the demand had been withdrawn, the Court dismissed this writ petition as infructuous. Regarding W.P.No.3053 of 2024, the Court directed that a fresh order be issued, allowing the petitioner a fair opportunity to submit a reply and attend a personal hearing before any further proceedings are initiated.