P. Venkataramaniah Vs Assistant Commissioner ST (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
The Andhra Pradesh High Court heard a writ petition filed by a partnership firm engaged in providing work contract services to various Government departments. The petitioner, a registered GST assessee, challenged the assessment order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the fourth respondent for the tax periods 2018-2019 to 2021-2022.
The petitioner contended that the impugned assessment order, which covered multiple tax periods through a single composite order, was impermissible under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. In support of this contention, the petitioner relied upon the decision of a co-ordinate Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in S.J. Constructions v. The Assistant Commissioner & Others (W.P No.11028 of 2025 & batch), dated 17.09.2025.
The petitioner referred to the findings in that decision, wherein the Court had held that Section 74(3) is pari materia with Section 73(3), and although Section 74(4) does not use the expression “such tax period”, that omission does not alter the interpretation. The co-ordinate Bench had further observed that permitting a single show cause notice or a single composite assessment order for more than one assessment or financial year would adversely affect a registered person’s rights under Section 128 of the Andhra Pradesh GST Act as well as the statutory right to file appeals against assessment orders passed under Sections 73 or 74.
The earlier decision concluded that a single show cause notice or a single composite assessment order cannot be issued for more than one tax period, whether for multiple months where the due date for filing the annual return has not been reached or for more than one financial year where the due date for filing the annual return has already expired.
The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents did not dispute either the legal position laid down in the earlier judgment or the factual position that the impugned order was a composite assessment covering multiple tax periods.
Having regard to the undisputed factual and legal position, the High Court set aside the assessment proceedings dated 31.08.2024. The Court granted liberty to the fourth respondent to issue separate notices and proceed with separate assessments for the relevant tax periods after providing due opportunity to the petitioner and in accordance with law.
The Court further directed that the period from the date of the impugned assessment order until the date of receipt of the High Court’s order shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation.
Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed. No order as to costs was made, and all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, were directed to stand closed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Heard Mr.S.Suri Babu, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.Sai Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the respondents 1 to 4. With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.
2. Petitioner, a Partnership Firm engaged in the business of Work Contract Services to various Departments of the Government is an assesse on the rolls of respondent No.1 with GSTIN No.37AACFP7143H1Z6. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the 4th respondent, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to various averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, inter alia contends that the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent for the tax period 2018-2019 to 2021-2022 covering multiple tax periods is impermissible in Law under the provisions of Central Goods and Service Tax Act. He also placed reliance on the decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.J. Constructions v. The Assistant Commissioner & Others (W.P No.11028 of 2025 & batch), dated 17.09.2025 wherein it was held as follows:
“17. Section 74(3) is in parimateria with Section 73(3). However, sub- section (4) of Section 74 does not contain the term “such tax period”. This non mention would not, in our opinion, make any difference to the aforesaid interpretation. Apart from this, there are certain other provisions, which would also have to be considered. Any interpretation of an Act should not result in some of the other provisions becoming otiose or reduced in scope. As rightly pointed out by the Hon’ble High Court at Madras, the right of a registered person to obtain benefit under Section 128 of APGST Act as well as the right to invoke the remedy of appeal against the orders of assessment either under Section 73 or under Section 74 would get impacted if a common order is permitted to be issued in relation to more than one assessment / financial year.
18. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that a single show cause notice or a single composite assessment order cannot be passed in relation to more than one tax period of either a month if the assessment is taken up before the due date for filing of the annual return or for more than one year if the due date for filing of annual return has been reached.”
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has not disputed the legal position, much less the factual aspects with regard to passing of a composite order impugned in the writ petition.
5. In view of the factual and legal position, the impugned proceedings dated 31.08.2024 are set aside. However, the 4th respondent is at liberty to issue separate notices and proceed with the assessments in respect of tax periods in question, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, in accordance with Law.
6. Further, the period from the date of passing of the impugned order till the date of receipt of this order shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation.
7. Accordingly, Writ Petition is allowed, as indicated above. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
