Case Law Details
Shri Vannappa Boya Vs Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
The Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the writ petition filed by Shri Vannappa Boya, challenging an assessment order dated April 18, 2024, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax. The impugned order covered two separate and distinct tax periods: 2018-2019 and 2021-2022.
The court’s decision hinged on a procedural flaw, not the merits of the tax demand. The petitioner’s counsel relied on a controlling judicial precedent of the same court, established in W.P.No.11028 of 2025 and batch (dated September 17, 2025), which holds that a single composite order cannot be passed for different tax periods under the GST Act.
The respondent argued that the writ petition should be dismissed, asserting that the invocation of Section 74 of the GST Act was proper and the petitioner’s substantive defense against tax evasion was without merit.
The High Court, however, declined to address these substantive issues. It ruled that the assessment order must be set aside on the short ground that it violated the legal mandate by combining separate tax periods into one order, a course of action deemed not permissible.
Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the assessment order, and remanded the matter back to the assessing authority. The authority was directed to pass fresh, period-specific assessment orders in accordance with the law. The court also clarified that the petitioner is entitled to raise all objections, including questions of limitation, before the assessing authority during the fresh proceedings.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
The petitioner herein was served with an order of assessment, dated 18.04.2024, in relation to the tax period 2018-2019 and 2021-2022. This order was challenged by the petitioner, by way of the present Writ Petition.
2. The petitioner had raised various grounds in the Writ Petition. However, at the stage of hearing, Sri G. Narendra Chetty, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court, dated 17.09.2025, in W.P.No.11028 of 2025 and batch wherein this Court had taken the view that a single composite order cannot be passed for different tax periods.
3. In the present case, a single composite order has been passed for different tax periods regarding from 2018-2019 and 2021-2022.
4. Naga Raja Kumari, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would contend that the writ petition filed by the petitioner requires to be dismissed on the ground that the contentions raised by the petitioner are not in accordance with law. She would submit that the invocation of Section 74 of the GST Act was proper, and the contention of the petitioner that such a provision could not be invoked as he had no intention of evading payment of tax cannot be accepted.
5. We do not propose to go into these issues raised by the learned Standing Counsel inasmuch as the order, dated 18.04.2024, has to be set aside on the short ground that the said order is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act inasmuch as the said order has been passed in relation to separate and distinct tax periods and such a course of action is not permissible.
6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 18.04.2024, and the matters are remanded back to the assessing authority to pass fresh assessment orders in accordance with law. Needless to say, it would be open to the petitioner to raise all objections including the questions of limitation before the assessing authority. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Author Bio
