Case Law Details
Shirdi Sai Enterprises Vs Deputy Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
The Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a GST assessment order dated 07.07.2023 on the ground that it impermissibly covered multiple assessment years through a single composite order. The petitioner was a registered person under the GST Act, whose registration had been cancelled on 23.02.2021 with effect from 08.02.2021, after which no business activity was carried on.
The impugned assessment order covered three separate tax periods—2018–19, 2019–20, and 2020–21. The petitioner contended that such a composite assessment was contrary to the settled legal position laid down by a Division Bench of the same Court, which held that separate assessment orders are required for each assessment year.
The respondents raised a preliminary objection on delay, arguing that the petitioner approached the Court belatedly since the assessment order was issued in July 2023. The petitioner countered this by stating that the order was never served and that knowledge of the assessment arose only in 2025, when recovery steps were initiated. The respondent authorities produced records showing that the order was dispatched but returned with endorsements indicating non-availability or refusal.
Upon examining the material, the Court found no proof of proper service of the assessment order on the petitioner. In view of the absence of valid service, the Court accepted the petitioner’s explanation and declined to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of delay.
On merits, the Court held that the assessment order was unsustainable as it covered three distinct assessment years in a single order. Relying on the earlier Division Bench judgment, the Court reiterated that a composite assessment for multiple years is impermissible under law.
Accordingly, the impugned assessment order dated 07.07.2023 was set aside. The matter was remanded to the assessing authority with a direction to pass separate assessment orders for each assessment year independently. The Court further directed that the period between the date of the impugned order and the date of receipt of the present order shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation. No order as to costs was made, and all pending interlocutory applications were closed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
The petitioner was a registered person under the provisions of the Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”]. The registration of the petitioner was cancelled on 23.02.2021 with effect from 08.02.2021 and thereafter, the petitioner has not been carrying on any further business.
2. The petitioner approached this Court challenging the impugned order of assessment, dated 07.07.2023, on the ground that the said Order of assessment covers the period 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 and the same is impermissible in view of the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, in W.P.No.11028 of 2025 & batch, in the case of SJ Constructions Vs. The Assistant Commissioner & Ors.
3. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax for the respondents would contend that there is an inordinate delay in the petitioner approaching this Court inasmuch as the order impugned is dated 07.07.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that there is no delay on the part of the petitioner inasmuch as the said order, dated 07.07.2023, was not served on the petitioner and the petitioner had come to know of the said order only after steps were taken in the year 2025 to recover the taxes is said to have been demanded under the impugned order.
4. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax has produced the material available with the respondent authorities regarding service of the order. The covers in which the order of assessment is said to have been sent and has been returned on the ground of the petitioner not being available or on the ground of being refused. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, upon cancellation of his registration, had closed his business, and was not available at the office address, which was in the records of the respondent authorities. He would therefore submit that there was no service of notice on the petitioner.
5. A perusal of the material placed before this Court does not show any proof of service of the impugned order, dated 07.07.2023, on the petitioner. In such circumstances, we have to accept the delay in the petitioner approaching this Court.
6. The impugned Order of assessment, dated 07.07.2023, as set out above covers three separate assessment years. Such a composite order in relation to three separate years is impermissible in view of the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, in W.P.No.11028 of 2025 & batch, in the case of SJ Constructions Vs. The Assistant Commissioner & Ors.
7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the order of assessment, dated 07.07.2023 and the matter is remanded back to the assessing authority to pass an appropriate order for each assessment year separately. Needless to say, the period from the date of the impugned order, till the date of receipt of this order shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed.
Author Bio
