C. Eswara Reddy And Co. Vs Joint Director (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
The Andhra Pradesh High Court heard a writ petition filed by C. Eswara Reddy And Co., a partnership firm registered under the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, engaged in the business of works contract services. The petitioner challenged the Order-in-Original dated 27.03.2025 and the Summary Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 29.03.2025, which covered the composite tax periods for the financial years 2020-21 and 2021-22.
The petitioner contended that the impugned order was unsustainable in light of an earlier decision of the High Court in W.P. No.11028 of 2025 & batch, and sought setting aside of the impugned orders. During the hearing, the petitioner also submitted that a show-cause notice dated 01.09.2025 had been issued after the Order-in-Original had already been passed.
The respondents opposed the writ petition, submitting that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy by way of an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and that the writ petition should not be entertained.
The High Court considered the submissions and noted that the impugned Order-in-Original and the summary order covered the composite tax periods for 2020-21 and 2021-22. The Court referred to the decision of a co-ordinate Bench in W.P. No.11028 of 2025 & batch dated 17.09.2025, which examined Sections 73 and 74 of the APGST Act. The earlier decision held that although Section 74(4) does not use the expression “such tax period,” permitting a single show-cause notice or a single composite assessment order for multiple tax periods would adversely affect a registered person’s rights, including the benefit under Section 128 of the APGST Act and the statutory right of appeal against assessment orders under Sections 73 and 74. The co-ordinate Bench concluded that a single show-cause notice or a single composite assessment order cannot be passed for more than one tax period, whether relating to multiple months or multiple financial years, depending on the stage of assessment.
Following the above decision and for similar reasons, the High Court set aside the impugned Order-in-Original dated 27.03.2025 and the Summary Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 29.03.2025, and allowed the writ petition.
The Court clarified that respondent No.2 is at liberty to issue separate notices for the relevant tax periods and proceed with assessments in accordance with law after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. It further directed that the period from the date of the impugned order until the date of receipt of the High Court’s order shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation. No costs were awarded, and all pending miscellaneous petitions were ordered to stand closed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Heard Sri Sheik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel for the petitioner who appeared through online and Sri S.A.V.Sai Kumar, learned Junior Standing Counsel for CBIC.
2. Petitioner, a partnership firm registered under the provisions of the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, (for short “the Act”), is engaged in the business of works contract services, aggrieved by Order-in-Original dated 27.03.2025 and Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 29.03.2025, filed the present writ petition on various grounds.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the various averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, made submissions inter alia that the order of respondent No.2 covering composite tax period for the different Assessment Years i.e., 2020-21 and 2021-22 is not sustainable in the light of the decisions rendered by this Court in W.P No.11028 of 2025, and seeks to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders.
4. On the other hand, Sri S.A.V.Sai Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submits that the petitioner has remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and instead of filing an appeal, the present writ petition is filed and the same cannot be entertained.
5. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused material on record.
6. Admittedly, Order-in-Original dated 27.03.2025 and Summary of the Order of the respondent No.2 covers the composite tax period of 2020-21 and 2021-22. At this stage, the learned counsel also submits that in fact, show-cause notice dated 01.09.2025 was issued by the respondent No.1, after the said Order-in-Original was passed.
7. Be that as it may, in W.P No.11028 of 2025 & batch, a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.09.2025 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.”
8. In the light of the above cited decision and for reasons alike, the impugned orders are set aside. Writ Petition is allowed, as indicated above.
9. Needless to observe that respondent No.2 is at liberty to issue separate notices in respect of relevant tax periods and proceed with the assessments in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to the petitioner.
10. 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. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
