Bindu Recepies Private Limited Vs Union of India and Others (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Summary: The Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati allowed the writ petition filed by M/s. Bindu Recepies Private Limited against the Order in Original dated 30.03.2026. The petitioner, a manufacturing unit registered under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and engaged in manufacture and supply of bakery and confectionery products, challenged the impugned order on various grounds. The order covered the tax periods relating to Assessment Years 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22.
The petitioner contended that the impugned order was unsustainable in view of the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in S J Constructions Vs Assistant Commissioner And Others, W.P. No.11028 of 2025, dated 17.09.2025. On that basis, the petitioner sought setting aside of the impugned order.
The Revenue opposed the writ petition, contending that the petitioner had straightaway invoked writ jurisdiction instead of availing the statutory appellate remedy. The learned Standing Counsel, however, did not dispute the decision in S J Constructions.
The High Court found it unnecessary to examine the several other contentions raised in the writ petition. It held that the impugned order was liable to be set aside because it was a composite order covering the tax periods from 2019 to 2022.
In S J Constructions, the coordinate Bench had considered the interpretation of Sections 73 and 74 in relation to proceedings covering more than one tax period. The Court noted that Section 74(3) is in pari materia with Section 73(3), while the absence of the expression “such tax period” in Section 74(4) did not alter the interpretation. The Court also considered the effect of permitting a common order for more than one assessment or financial year on other statutory provisions.
In particular, the coordinate Bench observed that such an interpretation could affect the registered person’s right to obtain the benefit under Section 128 of the APGST Act as well as the right to invoke the appellate remedy against assessment orders under Sections 73 or 74. It therefore held that a single show cause notice or a single composite assessment order could not be passed in relation to more than one tax period of a month where assessment was 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 had been reached.
Applying that decision, the present Division Bench held that the impugned composite orders were liable to be set aside. The writ petition was accordingly allowed.
The Court clarified that respondent No.2 was at liberty to issue separate notices in respect of the relevant tax periods and proceed with the assessments in accordance with law after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Thus, the Court did not finally adjudicate the underlying tax issues; the relief was directed against the composite nature of the impugned order and permitted the Revenue to undertake separate proceedings in accordance with law.
The Court further directed that the period from the date of passing of the impugned order until the date of receipt of the High Court’s order would be excluded for the purpose of limitation. No costs were awarded, and any pending miscellaneous petitions were directed to stand closed.
Cases Discussed
- S J Constructions Vs Assistant Commissioner And Others, W.P. No.11028 of 2025 — followed for the proposition that a single show cause notice or composite assessment order cannot cover more than one tax period in the circumstances considered by the coordinate Bench.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Smt. Santhi Chandra, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC.
2. Petitioner, a manufacturing unit registered under Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short “the Act”) with GSTIN:37AAECB5549G2ZJ, is engaged in the business of manufacture and supply of bakery and confectionery products, aggrieved by the Order in Original dated 30.03.2026, 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.2 covering tax period for the different Assessment Years i.e., 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 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 Standing Counsel, while refuting the said contentions sought to sustain the impugned order. Her 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 by this Court 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 is a composite order covering the tax periods 2019 to 2022.
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 orders are set aside. Writ Petition is allowed, as indicated above.
9. Needless to observe that respondent No.2 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.
10. 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. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
