G M R A Shaha Iron Steels Vs Assistant Commissioner State Tax (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Summary: The Andhra Pradesh High Court considered a challenge to an assessment order dated 27.05.2025 passed against the petitioner, a registered firm bearing GSTIN No.37ERGPK1190A1Z2. The petitioner primarily challenged the assessment order on the ground that it was a composite order covering more than one tax period, namely 2020-21 and 2023-24, and contended that such clubbing was impermissible under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act.
The writ petition was disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both sides. The petitioner relied upon the decision of a 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 Co-ordinate Bench considered Sections 73 and 74 and 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. The Court’s reasoning included the effect that a common order covering more than one assessment or financial year could impact a registered person’s right to obtain the benefit under Section 128 of the Andhra Pradesh GST Act and the right to invoke the statutory remedy of appeal against orders passed under Sections 73 or 74.
The petitioner relied upon this principle to challenge the impugned assessment order dated 27.05.2025, which covered the tax periods 2020-21 and 2023-24. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents did not dispute either the legal position or the factual aspect that the impugned order was a composite assessment order.
The petitioner had raised various grounds of challenge. However, before the High Court, the petitioner pressed the primary ground concerning the composite nature of the assessment order. The Court therefore considered that ground and expressly left the other grounds of challenge open.
Following the legal position relied upon by the petitioner, the High Court disposed of the writ petition by setting aside the assessment order dated 27.05.2025. The Court left it open to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings for each assessment year separately. Thus, the Court did not finally adjudicate the other grounds raised by the petitioner or determine the underlying tax liability on merits.
The relief was made subject to a specific condition. The petitioner was directed to deposit 20% of the disputed tax within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Any payment made by the petitioner after the impugned order had been passed was directed to be set off for the purpose of calculating the required 20% deposit.
The Court further directed that the period from the date on which the impugned assessment order was passed until the date of receipt of the present order would be excluded for the purpose of limitation. This preserved the respondents’ ability to initiate fresh proceedings separately for each assessment year within the applicable limitation framework.
The Court accordingly set aside the composite assessment order while leaving the respondents at liberty to undertake fresh, assessment-year-wise proceedings. There was no order as to costs, and miscellaneous petitions, if any, were directed to stand closed.
The decision is consistent with the TaxGuru-reported ruling in S.J. Constructions, which addressed the validity of composite GST show cause notices and assessment orders covering multiple tax periods and financial years. TaxGuru coverage also records the broader judicial controversy concerning clubbing of multiple GST periods, including decisions taking differing views on the permissibility of composite proceedings. The present order, however, is confined to the composite assessment-order ground pressed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the consequential directions issued by it.
Cases Discussed
- S.J. Constructions v. The Assistant Commissioner & Others, W.P. No.11028 of 2025 & batch, dated 17.09.2025 — The petitioner relied upon this Co-ordinate Bench decision, which held that a single show cause notice or composite assessment order cannot be passed in relation to more than one tax period or more than one financial year in the circumstances considered by the Court. The present Court relied upon that legal position in setting aside the impugned composite assessment order.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Heard Mr. P.V. Sai Rajesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S.A.V. Sai Kumar, learned Assistant 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 firm, is an assessee on the rolls of respondents with GSTIN No.37ERGPK1190A1Z2. Aggrieved by the assessment orderst dated 27.05.2025 passed by the 1 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 thest impugned assessment order dated 27.05.2025 passed by the 1 respondent for the tax period 2020-21 & 2023-24 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 Assistant 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. 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.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned assessment order dated 27.05.2025, leaving it open to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings, for each assessment year separately.
6. This order, however, shall be subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax, within a period of six (06) weeks, from the date of receipt 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 20%.
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.
There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
