Telangana High Court Rebukes Multiple GST Notices For Same Period

The Telangana High Court has clamped down on the arbitrary issuance of multiple show cause notices and assessment orders for the same tax period, mandating a rectification process to resolve systemic procedural errors. A bench of Acting Chief Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao heard the matter. The Bench was presiding over a writ petition challenging the issuance of multiple show cause notices followed by multiple orders passed for the same tax period under the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act.

Key Takeaways

Check on Procedural Redundancy

Tax authorities cannot issue overlapping notices or orders for identical tax periods, preventing harassment through repetitive litigation.

Expansion of Rectification Power

Section 161 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is now established as a primary remedy for correcting errors related to multiple notices without the strict six-month limitation period.

Departmental Accountability

State authorities are required to intimate taxpayers about rectification exercises, ensuring transparency and adherence to Standard Operating Procedures (SOP).

Court Observations and Directions

The Telangana High Court noted that the issue at hand was identical to a previous batch of cases resolved by the same court. The bench observed that the Department acknowledged these errors as rectifiable under the law.

The Bench issued the following directions

"In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of the stand of the Department, which appears to be in consonance with the power of rectification conferred upon the proper officer under Section 161 of the TGST Act, we deem it proper to dispose of the writ petitions to enable the concerned proper officers to undertake the exercise of rectification of the impugned notices/orders, in accordance with law, within a reasonable time with due intimation to the assessees. .…. Needless to say, upon such rectification, if any of the petitioners have any grievances which are not amenable to the power of rectification under Section 161 of the TGST Act, it would be open for them to raise before appropriate forum in an appropriate proceeding. 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 also as per law."

Ratio

The power of rectification conferred upon a proper officer under Section 161 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 extends to errors involving the issuance of multiple show cause notices or orders for the same tax period. Such errors fall under the second proviso of the said section, meaning the standard six-month limitation period for rectification does not apply when the error is brought to the notice of the officer by the affected taxpayer.

Background

The petitioner, M/s. S.I.S. Construction, moved the High Court aggrieved by the adjudication proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner (ST). The primary grievance was the issuance of several show cause notices and subsequent orders covering the same tax period, which the petitioner argued was legally unsustainable. During the hearing, both the petitioner and the State's counsel agreed that the matter was squarely covered by the Court's earlier decision in Writ Petition No.20731 of 2025 and batch cases.

In that precedent, the Court had recorded the Advocate General's submission that a circular dated 14.10.2025 had been uploaded to the GST portal to address similar grievances. The Telangana High Court disposed of the present petition in similar terms, allowing the proper officer to rectify the notices or orders while granting the petitioner the liberty to approach the appropriate forum if any grievances remained post-rectification. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

Case Details:
Case No.: WRIT PETITION No.35858 OF 2026
Case Title: M/s. S.I.S. Construction vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)/State Tax Officer (ST) and 3 others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Sri K.P. Amarnath Reddy, Counsel
For the Respondent(s): Sri K. Sai Akarsh, Assistant Government Pleader for State Tax

Source: 2026 CaseBase(TEL) 34910