PR Industries Vs Assistant Commissioner ST (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Summary: The Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati, comprising Justice Ninala Jayasurya and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar, disposed of Writ Petition No. 22160 of 2026 filed by M/s. PR Industries against an ex-parte composite order dated 17.09.2025 passed under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The impugned assessment order covered the tax periods 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 up to December 2024. The petitioner challenged the order, inter alia, on the ground that a single/composite assessment order covering multiple tax periods was impermissible under the GST law. The petitioner’s case also referred to the absence of service of a show cause notice or personal hearing notice and contended that Section 74 had been invoked to obtain the longer limitation period.
The writ petition was heard at the admission stage with the consent of the parties. The petitioner relied upon the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in S J Constructions Vs Assistant Commissioner And Others, W.P. No. 11028 of 2025 & batch, dated 17.09.2025.
In S.J. Constructions, the co-ordinate Bench considered Sections 73 and 74 and held that the absence of the expression “such tax period” in Section 74(4), unlike Section 73(4), did not alter the interpretation. The Court also considered the impact of permitting a common order covering more than one assessment or financial year upon other statutory provisions, including the registered person’s benefit under Section 128 of the APGST Act and the statutory right of appeal against assessment orders under Sections 73 or 74. It concluded that a single show cause notice or a single composite assessment order could not be passed in relation to more than one tax period of a month where assessment was taken up before the due date for filing the annual return, or for more than one year where the due date for filing the annual return had been reached.
In the present matter, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the Revenue did not dispute the legal position or the factual aspect concerning issuance of the composite order.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the impugned order dated 17.09.2025. However, the Court expressly granted the first respondent liberty to issue separate orders for each assessment year and proceed with the assessments concerning the tax periods in question, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and in accordance with law.
The relief was therefore directed against the composite nature of the assessment order. The Court did not finally adjudicate the underlying tax merits. The order was made subject to the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax within eight weeks from receipt of the order, with payments already made after the impugned order to be set off for calculating the 20% amount.
The Court further directed that the period from the date of the impugned order until the date of receipt of the High Court’s order would be excluded for limitation purposes. Since the impugned order was set aside, all consequential proceedings were directed to stand revoked. The writ petition was disposed of without an order as to costs, and miscellaneous petitions, if any, were closed.
Cases Discussed
- S J Constructions Vs Assistant Commissioner And Others, W.P. No. 11028 of 2025 & batch — relied upon for the proposition that a single show cause notice or composite assessment order cannot be passed in relation to more than one tax period in the circumstances considered by the co-ordinate Bench.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.A.V. Sai Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2. With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.
2. Petitioner a registered firm, is served with assessment order dated 17.09.2025 under Section 74 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act (in short „CGST Act‟). Aggrieved by the said order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the 1st respondent, the present writ petition is filed.
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 of the 1st respondent for the tax period 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 (upto December, 2024) covering multiple tax periods is impermissible in Law under the provisions of CGST 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 issuance of composite order impugned in the writ petition.
5. In view of the factual and legal position, the impugned order dated 17.09.2025 is set aside. However, the 1st respondent is at liberty to issue separate orders for each assessment year and proceed with the assessments in respect of tax periods in question, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, in accordance with Law.
6. This order shall be subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax, within a period of eight (08) weeks, from the date of receipt of this order. Any payment made by the petitioner, after the impugned order, had been passed, shall be set off, for the purpose of calculating the aforesaid 20%.
7. 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.
8. In view of setting aside of impugned order, all consequential proceedings shall stand revoked.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
