Order Date – 24 June 2025

Parties: Palem Ashok Reddy, Proprietor of M/s. GNR Construction Vs The Commissioner,    GST & CX Commissionerate Rourkela, The Commissioner, CGST & CX Audit Commissionerate and The Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Aurangabad

Facts –

• The Petitioner, Palem Ashok Reddy, Proprietor of M/s GNR Construction, acting as a sub-contractor during FYs 2015–16 and 2016–17, received two separate assessment orders for the same period passed by the Commissioner, GST & CX, Rourkela and passed after a hearing by the Commissioner, CGST & CX (Audit), Nashik.
• The petitioner claimed the Rourkela order was passed without notice or hearing, and he only received the order on 02.04.2025, long after it was passed. The postal records indicated the notice from Rourkela was returned unserved with the remark “addressee cannot be located.”

Issue –

• Whether two separate assessment orders can be passed for the same financial years by two different authorities?

Order –

• The Divisional Bench of Hon’ble High Court observed that when multiple assessment orders exist for the same assessment year in respect of same assessee with respect to  identical subject-matter, the order that addresses the merits of the case generally takes precedence over an ex parte order (an order issued in  the  absence of  the  taxpayer).
• This  is  because an  ex parte  order is  typically  made without  considering  the taxpayer’s  arguments, evidence,  or  objections/ explanation,  if any.  The  order based  on  merit reflects application  of  mind in  decision  making and  thorough examination of the facts and law being made, such order is preferred to be sustained rather than the order which is passed in absence of the assessee  for want of service of notice.
• Further, there cannot  be  any cavil  that  justice dictates  that  a person who  had  no opportunity  to  defend themselves against the making of an order should not be placed in a worse  position than  they would  have been  in  had they been able  to  fully participate in the proceedings leading to the order. A decision, therefore, made after hearing is more authoritative than a default decision.
• Hence the court Court is, therefore, inclined to entertain this writ petition by quashing  the  ex parte  Assessment  Order.