Jubilant Avenues Private Limited Vs The Superintendent of Central Tax Kothapet Cost Range & Anr. (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Summary: The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the assessment order dated 30.12.2025 passed against Jubilant Avenues Private Limited under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the tax periods 2019-20 and 2020-21. The Court held that the composite assessment order covering multiple tax periods could not be sustained and granted the tax authority liberty to issue separate orders for each assessment year after giving due opportunity to the petitioner.
Jubilant Avenues Private Limited, a registered firm, challenged Order in Original No. 44/2025-26-GST(Supdt) dated 30.12.2025 passed by the Superintendent of Central Tax Kothapet COST Range under Section 74 of the CGST Act. The petitioner contended that the assessment order had been passed in a consolidated manner for the tax periods 2019-20 and 2020-21 and without issuance of an intimation for payment of tax in DRC-01A. The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to declare the impugned assessment order illegal and to set it aside.
At the admission stage, the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in S.J. Constructions v. The Assistant Commissioner & Others, W.P. No.11028 of 2025 & batch, dated 17.09.2025.
In S.J. Constructions, the Court considered the scheme of Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act. It observed that Section 74(3) is in pari materia with Section 73(3), while Section 74(4) does not contain the expression “such tax period”. According to the decision, the omission of that expression in Section 74(4) did not alter the interpretation. The Court also considered the impact of a composite assessment order on other statutory provisions, including the registered person’s right to obtain benefit under Section 128 of the APGST Act and the right to invoke the appellate remedy against assessment orders under Sections 73 and 74.
The Co-ordinate Bench ultimately held 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 the 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.
The same legal position was invoked by the petitioner in the present case because the impugned order covered the tax periods 2019-20 and 2020-21 in a consolidated manner.
The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents did not dispute either the legal position relied upon by the petitioner or the factual position that a composite assessment order had been issued.
In view of the undisputed factual and legal position, the Division Bench comprising Justice Ninala Jayasurya and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar set aside the impugned assessment order dated 30.12.2025. However, the Court expressly permitted the first respondent to issue separate orders for each assessment year and proceed with the assessments in respect of the tax periods in question, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and 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 shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation.
Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of on the above terms. There was no order as to costs and any pending miscellaneous petitions were directed to stand closed.
Cases Discussed
- S.J. Constructions v. The Assistant Commissioner & Others, W.P. No.11028 of 2025 & batch, dated 17.09.2025 — relied upon by the petitioner and applied to the issue of whether a single show cause notice or composite assessment order can cover more than one tax period.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Santhi Chandra, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department 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 30.12.2025 under Section 74 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act (in short „CGST Act‟). Aggrieved by the said order dated 30.12.2025 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 2019-20 and 2020-21 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 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.”
4. Learned Standing Counsel 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 30.12.2025 is set aside. However, the 1st respondent is at liberty to issue separate orders for each assessment year and proceed with the assessments 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.
