Composite Assessment Order for Multiple Years Quashed; Separate Orders Required

Issue

Whether a single “composite” adjudication order passed under Section 73/74 can legally cover multiple assessment years (e.g., 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21) simultaneously, or if the GST Act requires a distinct order for each financial year.

Facts

The Period: The dispute covered three financial years: 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21.
The Action: The GST Authority passed a single composite assessment order clubbing the demands for all three years into one document.
Assessee’s Status: The assessee’s registration had been cancelled effective 08-02-2021, and they had ceased business operations.
The Challenge: The assessee filed a writ petition arguing that clubbing multiple years into one order is procedurally incorrect and illegal, relying on the precedent set in SJ Constructions v. Assistant Commissioner.

Decision

Reliance on Precedent: The High Court followed the principle laid down in SJ Constructions (Andhra Pradesh High Court, 2025). The Court held that the scheme of the GST Act (specifically limitation periods under Section 73/74) treats each financial year as a distinct unit of assessment.
Composite Order Invalid: Consequently, a single order sweeping across multiple years violates this scheme. The Court held such composite orders to be impermissible and liable to be set aside.
Remand: The impugned order was quashed. The matter was remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority with a specific direction to pass separate orders for each assessment year individually.

Key Takeaways

One Year, One Order: Tax authorities cannot bundle multiple years into a single demand order for convenience. This is crucial because the Limitation Period (deadlines) is calculated separately for each financial year (e.g., the deadline for FY 18-19 is different from FY 19-20). Bundling them often obscures whether a specific year’s demand is time-barred.
Defense Strategy: If you receive a Show Cause Notice (SCN) or Order that lumps multiple years together without clearly segregating the demands and limitation dates, you can challenge its validity on procedural grounds citing this ruling.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Shirdi Sai Enterprises

Deputy Assistant Commissioner of State Tax^*

R RAGHUNANDAN RAO and T.C.D. Sekhar, JJ.

WRIT PETITION NO. 26594 OF 2025

DECEMBER 24, 2025

J.N Venkata Suresh Kumar for the Petitioner.

ORDER

R. Raghunandan Rao, J. – 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 S J Constructions v. Asstt. Commissioner GSTL 348 (Andhra Pradesh).

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 S J Constructions (supra).

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.