Venspra Impex Vs Deputy Commissionerst (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Summary: The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside an assessment order dated 12.06.2026 issued against Venspra Impex, a registered firm, under Section 74 of the CGST Act for the years 2021-22 to 2024-25. The writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of counsel for both sides. The petitioner challenged the order on the ground that a single assessment order covering multiple tax periods was impermissible under the GST law and relied upon S.J. Constructions v. The Assistant Commissioner & Others, W.P. No.11028 of 2025 & batch, dated 17.09.2025. In that decision, the co-ordinate Bench held that Section 74(3) is in pari materia with Section 73(3), and that the omission of the expression “such tax period” from Section 74(4) did not alter the interpretation. It also observed that permitting a common assessment order for more than one assessment or financial year would affect a registered person’s rights under Section 128 of the APGST Act and the statutory appellate remedy against assessments under Sections 73 or 74.
The cited decision prohibited a single show cause notice or composite assessment order covering more than one monthly tax period where assessment preceded the annual-return due date, or more than one year where that due date had been reached. The Government Pleader disputed neither the legal position nor the factual aspect of the composite order. Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order but permitted the first respondent to issue separate notices and pass separate assessment orders for each assessment year after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. The period between the impugned order and receipt of the Court’s order was excluded for limitation purposes. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Cases Discussed
- W.P. No.11028 of 2025 & batch, dated 17.09.2025; 2025 taxguru.in 8275 — S.J. Constructions v. The Assistant Commissioner & Others (Andhra Pradesh High Court): Relied upon by the petitioner and followed by the Court to set aside the composite assessment order. The co-ordinate Bench held that a single show cause notice or composite assessment order cannot cover more than one monthly tax period before the annual-return due date, or more than one year once that due date has been reached, having regard to the statutory scheme and the effect on available benefits and appellate rights.
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, appearing for the respondents. 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 12.06.2026 under Section 74 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act (in short ‘CGST Act’) for the years 2021-22 to 2024-25. Aggrieved by the said order dated 12.06.2026, 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 2021-22 to 2024-25, 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 pari materia with Section 73(3). However, subsection (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 Government Pleader for Commercial Tax 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 12.06.2026 is set aside. However, the 1st respondent is at liberty to issue separate notices for each assessment year, proceed and pass separate assessment orders 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, the writ petition is disposed of, as indicated above.
8. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
