Lakshmi Ganga Bhavani Oil Mill Vs Assistant Commissioner ST (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Summary: The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sri Lakshmi Ganga Bhavani Oil Mill Vs Assistant Commissioner ST, Writ Petition No.27301 of 2026, decided on 24 September 2026, held that a composite GST assessment order covering multiple financial years was unsustainable in view of the earlier Division Bench ruling in S J Constructions Vs Assistant Commissioner and Others. The petitioner, a registered wholesale dealer in groundnuts, challenged the assessment order dated 23 August 2025 and the appellate order dated 17 March 2026. Although the petitioner’s submissions referred to tax periods from 2019-20 to 2024-25, the Court specifically recorded that the impugned composite order covered 2021-22 to 2024-25. The Court held that the assessment and appellate orders were liable to be set aside because they covered multiple tax periods through a single order.
The petitioner relied on the decision in S J Constructions Vs Assistant Commissioner and Others, W.P. No.11028 of 2025 and batch, dated 17 September 2025, which held that a single show cause notice or composite assessment order cannot cover more than one tax period or financial year. That decision examined the relationship between Sections 73 and 74 of the GST law, including the effect of consolidated proceedings on statutory rights under Section 128 and the right to appeal. The Revenue opposed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had an alternative remedy before the Appellate Tribunal and had failed to attend three personal hearings before the Appellate Authority. It also stated that the earlier decision had been challenged before the Supreme Court, where notice in the delay petition had been ordered.
The High Court nevertheless applied the binding coordinate Bench decision and held that the original composite assessment order was not sustainable. However, considering the petitioner’s failure to avail the three opportunities of personal hearing before the Appellate Authority, the Court granted relief subject to the condition that the petitioner deposit 50% of the disputed tax within eight weeks from receipt of the order. Amounts already deposited towards the disputed tax after the impugned orders were to be credited. In the event of non-compliance, the authorities were permitted to proceed in accordance with law. The Court also clarified that the Assessing Authority remained free to issue separate notices for the relevant tax periods and undertake fresh assessments after providing the petitioner an opportunity. No costs were awarded, and pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.
List of Cases Discussed
1. S J Constructions Vs Assistant Commissioner and Others, W.P. No.11028 of 2025 & batch, decided on 17.09.2025 (Andhra Pradesh High Court) — Followed for the principle that a single show cause notice or composite assessment order cannot cover multiple tax periods or financial years, considering Sections 73, 74 and 128 of the GST legislation.
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 respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. Petitioner, registered dealer under Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short “the Act”) with GSTIN:37AYEPG0577E2ZK, is engaged in the business trading of Ground Nuts as a whole sale dealer, aggrieved by common Assessment Order dated 23.08.2025 issued by respondent No.1 and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 17.03.2026 in confirming the Assessment Order dated 23.08.2025, 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.1 covering tax period for the different Assessment Years i.e., 2019-20 to 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 orders. His submission is that the petitioner instead of availing the remedy of further appeal before the Appellate Tribunal had straightaway filed the present writ petition and the same is not maintainable. However, he has not disputed the decision rendered by this Court in S J Constructions (referred to supra), but states that an appeal has been preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and notice in delay petition was ordered. He further contends that though opportunity for personal hearing on three occasions in the Appeal was afforded, petitioner/appellant did not avail the same and the Appellate Authority passed an order dated 17.03.2026. After the time for statutory appeal before the Appellate Tribunal expired, petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. As such, no interference is warranted.
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 orders are liable to be set aside on the ground that the same is a composite order covering the tax periods 2021-22 to 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. In the light of the above cited decision, the original order itself is not sustainable. However, petitioner availed remedy of appeal against the same and failed to avail opportunity of three hearings granted by the Appellate Authority. Keeping circumstances aforesaid in view and since appellate order is against an invalid order, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned orders, subject to condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In the event of non-compliance of the condition, the authorities are at liberty to proceed in the matter, in accordance with law.
9. Further, amount, if any, already deposited by the petitioner towards the disputed tax after passing of the impugned orders, shall be given credit to. Needless to observe that respondent No.1 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.
