Vishwa Vinayaka Build Tech Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Summary: The Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati considered a writ petition filed by M/s. Vishwa Vinayaka Build Tech, a registered person under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, engaged in the business of selling granite blocks. The petitioner challenged the common Assessment Order dated 13.04.2024 issued by respondent No.3, whereby 100% penalty was imposed. The proceedings covered different tax periods, namely 2020-2021, April 2021–March 2022 and April 2022–March 2023.
The petitioner contended that the composite assessment order covering different assessment years was unsustainable in view of the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in S J Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner & Others, W.P. No.11028 of 2025 & batch, dated 17.09.2025.
The Revenue opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner had directly invoked writ jurisdiction instead of availing the statutory appellate remedy. However, the learned Government Pleader did not dispute the decision in S J Constructions. It was stated that an appeal had been preferred against that decision before the Supreme Court and notice in the delay petition had been ordered.
The High Court considered the submissions and material on record. Although several contentions had been raised in the writ petition, the Court found it unnecessary to examine them in detail because the impugned order itself was liable to be set aside on the ground that it was a composite order covering multiple tax periods.
The Court relied upon the reasoning in S J Constructions concerning Sections 73 and 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The co-ordinate Bench had held that although Section 74(4) does not contain the expression “such tax period”, that omission did not alter the interpretation. It further considered that permitting a common order for more than one assessment or financial year could affect the registered person’s right to obtain the benefit under Section 128 of the APGST Act and the right to invoke the statutory remedy of appeal against assessment orders under Sections 73 or 74.
The co-ordinate Bench had accordingly 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.
Following that decision and for reasons alike, the High Court set aside the impugned composite assessment order dated 13.04.2024. The Court granted respondent No.3 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. This liberty was made subject to the petitioner depositing 30% of the penalty amount within six weeks from 20.08.2026.
The writ petition was accordingly disposed of. There was no order as to costs, and miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, were directed to stand closed.
Cases Discussed
- S J Constructions Vs Assistant Commissioner And Others, W.P. No.11028 of 2025 & batch, dated 17.09.2025 — Andhra Pradesh High Court.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.Kalyan Chakravarthy, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax representing the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. Petitioner registered under Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short “the Act”) with GSTIN:37AAOFV8238M1Z7, is engaged in the business of selling of granite blocks. Aggrieved the common Assessment Order dated 13.04.2024 issued by respondent No.3 in imposing 100% penalty, filed the present writ petition on various grounds.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the various averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, made submissions inter alia that the order of respondent No.3 covering tax period for the different Assessment Years i.e., 2020-2021, April 2021 – March 2022 and April 2022 to March 2023, 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 order.
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), but states that an appeal has been preferred against the said decision before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and notice in the delay petition was ordered.
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 is a composite order covering the tax periods 2020-2021, April 2021 – March 2022 and April 2022 to March 2023.
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. In the light of the above cited decision and for reasons alike, the impugned order is set aside. Writ Petition is disposed of, as indicated above.
9. Needless to observe that respondent No.3 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, however, subject to condition of the petitioner depositing 30% of the penalty amount within a period of six (06) weeks from today. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
