GSR Handlooms Vs Assistant Commissioner (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Summary: The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the summary order dated 23.12.2025 passed against GSR Handlooms, a registered proprietary concern dealing in handloom sarees, covering the tax periods 2019-20 to 2023-24 and 2024-25. The petitioner challenged the order primarily because it combined multiple tax periods in a single assessment, which was contended to be impermissible under the GST law. In support, the petitioner relied upon S.J. Constructions v. The Assistant Commissioner & Others, W.P. No.11028 of 2025 & batch, decided on 17.09.2025. The quoted precedent explained that Section 74(3) is pari materia with Section 73(3), and that the omission of “such tax period” from Section 74(4) did not change the interpretation. It also considered the impact of composite orders on statutory benefits and appellate rights, holding that a single notice or assessment order could not cover more than one monthly tax period before the annual-return due date, or more than one year once that due date had been reached. The Government Pleader disputed neither the legal position nor the composite nature of the order.
Applying the precedent, the Court disposed of the petition on this ground alone, leaving other challenges open and permitting fresh proceedings separately for each assessment year. Relief was conditional upon depositing 10% of the disputed tax within six weeks of receiving the order, with adjustment of payments made after the impugned order. All consequential proceedings stood revoked. The intervening period was excluded for limitation purposes, and no costs were awarded.
Cases Discussed
- S.J. Constructions v. The Assistant Commissioner & Others (Andhra Pradesh High Court), W.P. No.11028 of 2025 & batch, dated 17.09.2025 — Relied upon by the petitioner and followed by the Court. The co-ordinate Bench held that a single show cause notice or composite assessment order cannot cover more than one monthly tax period where assessment precedes the annual-return due date, or more than one year where that due date has been reached. Applying this principle, the Court set aside the composite summary order and permitted separate proceedings for each assessment year.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Kalyan Chakravarthy, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for the respondents. With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.
2. Petitioner, a registered taxpayer is proprietary concern engaged in business of dealing in handloom sarees (woven fabrics of cotton, HSN 5208), is an assessee on the rolls of respondent No.1 with GSTIN No.37BLQPG0546R1ZE. Aggrieved by the impugned summary order dated 23.12.2025 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 dated 23.12.2025 passed by the 1st respondent for the tax period 2019-20 to 2023-24 & 2024-25 covering multiple tax periods is impermissible in Law under the provisions of Central Goods and Service Tax 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 Government Pleader has not disputed the legal position, much less the factual aspects with regard to passing of composite order impugned in the writ petition.
5. The petitioner has raised various grounds of challenge. However, the petitioner is pressing the primary ground of the order being composite assessment order by placing reliance on the above cited decision and the principle is equally applicable to the case on hand. In that view of the matter, the present writ petition is being disposed of, on this ground of challenge, leaving open the other grounds of challenge.
6.Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned summary order dated 23.12.2025, leaving it open to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings, for each assessment year separately.
7. This order, however, shall be subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax, within a period of six (06) weeks, from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Any payment made by the petitioner, after the impugned order, had been passed, shall be set off, for the purpose of calculating the aforesaid 10%.
8. In view of setting aside of impugned order, all consequential proceedings shall stand revoked.
9. Needless to say, 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.
10. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
