Bluenine Infra Technologies Pvt Ltd Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Summary: The Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati allowed the writ petition filed by Bluenine Infra Technologies Pvt Ltd, which challenged a common show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 06.01.2026 and a composite order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 16.03.2026 issued by the fourth respondent.
The petitioner was registered under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and was engaged in trading computers, peripherals and allied information-technology goods. The impugned notice and order covered different assessment years, namely 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25. The petitioner contended that such composite proceedings were unsustainable in view of the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in S J Constructions Vs Assistant Commissioner & Others, W.P. No.11028 of 2025, dated 17.09.2025.
The petitioner therefore sought setting aside of the impugned orders. The Revenue opposed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal and had directly invoked writ jurisdiction. However, the learned Government Pleader did not dispute the decision in S J Constructions.
The Court considered the submissions and held that it was unnecessary to examine the several other contentions raised in the writ petition. The decisive issue was that the impugned proceedings comprised a composite show cause notice and composite order covering the tax periods 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25.
The Court followed the earlier coordinate Bench decision in S J Constructions. That decision considered the interplay between Sections 73(3) and 74(3), as well as the absence of the expression “such tax period” in Section 74(4). The coordinate Bench held that the omission did not alter the interpretation. It further considered the consequences of allowing a common order for more than one assessment or financial year, including the impact upon the registered person’s statutory rights under Section 128 of the APGST Act and the right to invoke the appellate remedy against assessment orders under Sections 73 or 74.
The coordinate Bench had concluded that a single show cause notice or a single composite assessment order cannot be passed in relation to more than one tax period of a month where assessment is 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 has been reached.
The present Court noted that several subsequent writ petitions challenging composite notices and orders had been disposed of in the light of S J Constructions. It also recorded that a Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.40652 of 2026 had recently been filed against the said decision, along with an application for condonation of delay, and that notice had been directed. The Court nevertheless proceeded to decide the present matter in the light of the cited coordinate Bench decision.
Accordingly, the Court held that the impugned assessment proceedings, being based on a composite show cause notice and composite order covering different tax periods, were not sustainable. The impugned order was therefore set aside and the writ petition was allowed.
The Court clarified that respondent No.4 remained at liberty to issue separate notices in respect of the relevant tax periods and proceed with the assessments in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to the petitioner. No costs were awarded and pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, were directed to stand closed.
Before parting, the Court observed that the Division Bench in S J Constructions had dealt elaborately with the issue of composite notices and composite orders. It noted that despite that decision, passing of composite orders by departmental officers was facilitating the filing of writ petitions and could not be countenanced. The Department was consequently directed to submit data/report before the Registry on or before 16.09.2026 regarding composite orders passed by individual officers after the S J Constructions decision and the writ petitions filed against such orders.
Cases Discussed
- S J Constructions Vs Assistant Commissioner And Others, W.P. No.11028 of 2025 & batch, dated 17.09.2025.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.A.V.Sai Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Tax representing the respondents.
2. Petitioner is registered under Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short “the Act”) with GSTIN:37AAECB9063F2ZK, is engaged in the business of trading in computers, peripherals and allied information-technology goods, aggrieved by common show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 06.01.2026 and composite order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 16.03.2026 issued by respondent No.4, 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 notice and order of respondent No.4 covering tax period for the different Assessment Years i.e., 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 is not sustainable, in the light of the decision rendered by this Court in S J Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner & ors. (W.P No.11028 of 2025) dated 17.09.2025., and seeks to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders.
4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader, while refuting the said contentions sought to sustain the impugned order. His submission is that the petitioner instead of availing the remedy of appeal had straightaway filed the present writ petition and the same is not maintainable. However, he has not disputed the decision rendered in S J Constructions (referred to supra).
5. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused material on record.
6. Though several contentions were raised in the writ petition, this Court feels it not necessary to examine the same in detail. Suffice to state that impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that the same are composite notice and composite order covering the tax periods 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24, 2024-25.
7. In W.P No.11028 of 2025 & batch, a co-ordinate 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. While referring to the decisions rendered by different High Courts, the Division Bench expressed its opinion that the interpretation of interplay between Sections 73 (3) and 74 (3) of the Act, placed by the High Court of Madras appears to be correct interpretation, agreed with the same and allowed writ petition.
9. Thereafter, number of writ petitions assailing the issuance of composite notices/composite orders were filed and same were disposed of in the light of the decision rendered in S J Constructions.
10. Very recently, it was brought to the notice that against the said order, Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.40652 of 2026 has been preferred with an application seeking to condone the delay and notice was directed. Be that as it may.
11. In the light of the above cited decision and for reasons alike, this Court is of the view that the impugned Assessment Orders, being a composite show cause notice and composite order covering different tax period, is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.
12. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. Writ Petition is allowed.
13. Needless to observe that respondent No.4 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. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
14. Before parting with the matter, it is pertinent to mention here that the Division Bench of this Court in S J Constructions (referred to supra) dealt with the issue of issuance of composite notices and passing of composite orders by the Officers of the Department elaborately.
15. Passing of composite orders by the officers concerned, despite the decision in SJ Constructions is facilitating filing of the writ petitions and the same cannot be countenanced.
16. Therefore, the respondent-Department shall submit data / report with regard to passing of composite orders by the individual officers after decision in S J Construction and writ petitions filed against the said orders, before the Registry on or before 16.09.2026.
