No Double Jeopardy: Madras High Court Dismisses GST Writ, Directs Proper Appeal Route

The current writ petition [W.P.(MD) No.20253 of 2025] is being filed by a private company named NTC Infrastructure and Engineering Private Limited (petitioner) against the Assistant Commissioner of GST and Excise (respondent) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the Madras High Court. Through the writ petition, the company is challenging a GST order [DIN: 20250159XN0400555A34] dated 27.01.2025, requesting the court to review the case deeply and quash the impugned order passed by the GST authorities under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The order was related to the financial year 2020-21 and had GST number 33AADCN8290K1Z4 of the company.

The company claimed that they had already been assessed by the State GST Authorities for the same year and on the same matter. Regarding the issue, they were issued an order dated 10.12.2024 by the state, which was also challenged by them before the State GST Appellate Commissioner. Therefore, on this issue, the company argued that the Central GST authority issuing a separate order for the same issue was “duplicating the demand”; the tax was demanded twice, once by the state and twice by the centre, which is unfair as per the law. Therefore, results in double jeopardy and is liable to be quashed.

On this point, the GST department defended the Central authority by saying the Central GST authorities have proper jurisdiction over this taxpayer, so the order was valid. The company has already filed an appeal against the state’s order and claimed the state had no jurisdiction. Hence, now the company has no right to argue on the point that both the state and central governments lack jurisdiction; that would be contradictory.

When the court analysed both the arguments of the taxpayer and the GST department, it found that the company had already challenged the State GST order, likely on the grounds that the State had no jurisdiction. Since the company has already claimed in the earlier ruling that the state had no jurisdiction, it cannot claim that the centre also has no jurisdiction in this case. If both had no jurisdiction, it means no one assessed the company, which is not legally acceptable.

Additionally, the company informed the GST department that the state had already issued an order against them on the same matter. This failure to inform is considered “acquiescence,” meaning the company silently accepted the process without objection at the right time. Therefore, the court denied the company’s claim of “double jeopardy.” The company was never suffering from double taxation, as the authorities never assessed the company, and it is the company’s responsibility to clarify such facts.

Therefore, in the final order, the company dismissed the writ petition. However, the court also provided some relief to the taxpayer on some conditions. The company is allowed to file a statutory appeal against the Central GST order within 30 days from the date it receives a copy of this court order. If such an appeal is filed, the Appellate Authority must consider it on its merits, meaning it should look into the facts and legal points fairly. Also, recovery proceedings based on the Central order will be kept on hold for 45 days, but only if the company files the appeal within 30 days and pre-deposits 10% of the disputed tax amount with the appeal.