Composite SCN and Assessment Order Covering Multiple Tax Periods Under Section 73 Is Legally Unsustainable

By | September 3, 2026
0 Comment
Composite SCN and Assessment Order Covering Multiple Tax Periods Under Section 73 Is Legally Unsustainable
Issue
Whether a single composite Show Cause Notice (SCN) in Form GST DRC-01 and a subsequent composite assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 issued under Section 73 for multiple tax periods (2021-22, 2022-23, and 2024-25) are legally sustainable.
Facts
  • Assessee Profile: The petitioner is a GST-registered dealer engaged in trading computers, peripherals, and allied IT goods.
  • Tax Periods Involved: 2021-22, 2022-23, and 2024-25.
  • Impugned Action: Respondent No. 4 issued a single SCN in Form GST DRC-01 followed by a single composite assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 covering all the aforesaid distinct tax periods together.
  • Writ Petition: The petitioner filed a writ petition directly challenging the composite nature of both the show cause notice and the assessment order.
Decision
  • Following the Coordinate Bench ruling in S J Constructions v. Asstt. Commissioner, a single SCN or composite assessment order cannot be issued for more than one tax period [Paras 6, 11, and 12].
  • For periods prior to the due date of the annual return, proceedings cannot combine multiple months, nor can they group multiple financial years after the due date [Paras 6, 11, and 12].
  • The interplay of the statutory provisions under Section 73 dictates that each tax period/year constitutes an independent cause of action [Paras 6, 11, and 12].
  • Because the impugned notice and order were composite across multiple tax periods, the proceedings were declared unsustainable and the assessment order was set aside [Paras 6, 11, and 12].
  • Verdict: Decided in favour of the assessee.
Key Takeaways
  • Prohibition of Bundled Notices: Revenue authorities cannot combine multiple assessment years or tax periods into a single composite SCN or assessment order under Section 73.
  • Period-Wise Jurisdictional Requirement: Each tax period carries its own distinct timelines, limitations, and calculation of tax liability; hence, independent notices and orders are mandatory.
  • Quashing of Fatal Defects: Issuing a common composite order for multiple financial years is a procedural defect that invalidates the resultant assessment order.
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Bluenine Infra Technologies (P.) Ltd.
v.
State of Andhra Pradesh
Ninala Jayasurya and T.C.D. Sekhar, JJ.
WRIT PETITION NO. 23506 of 2026†
AUGUST  19, 2026
B. Krishna Reddy for the Petitioner.
ORDER
Ninala Jayasurya, J.- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.A.V.Sai Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Tax representing the respondents.
2. Petitioner is registered under Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short “the Act”) with GSTIN:37AAECB9063F2ZK, is engaged in the business of trading in computers, peripherals and allied information-technology goods, aggrieved by common show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 06.01.2026 and composite order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 16.03.2026 issued by respondent No.4, filed the present writ petition on various grounds.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the various averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, made submissions inter alia that the notice and order of respondent No.4 covering tax period for the different Assessment Years i.e., 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 is not sustainable, in the light of the decision rendered by this Court in S J Constructions v. Asstt. Commissioner 102 GSTL 348 (Andhra Pradesh)/(W.P No.11028 of 2025) dated 17.09.2025., and seeks to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders.
4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader, while refuting the said contentions sought to sustain the impugned order. His submission is that the petitioner instead of availing the remedy of appeal had straightaway filed the present writ petition and the same is not maintainable. However, he has not disputed the decision rendered by this Court in S J Constructions (referred to supra).
5. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused material on record.
6. Though several contentions were raised in the writ petition, this Court feels it not necessary to examine the same in detail. Suffice to state that impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that the same are composite notice and composite order covering the tax periods 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24, 2024-25.
7. In S J Constructions (supra) & batch, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.09.2025 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.”
8. While referring to the decisions rendered by different High Courts, the Division Bench expressed its opinion that the interpretation of interplay between Sections 73 (3) and 74 (3) of the Act, placed by the High Court of Madras appears to be correct interpretation, agreed with the same and allowed writ petition.
9. Thereafter, number of writ petitions assailing the issuance of composite notices/composite orders were filed and same were disposed of in the light of the decision rendered in S J Constructions.
10. Very recently, it was brought to the notice that against the said order, State of Andhra Pradesh v. S J Constructions [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.40652 of 2026]has been preferred with an application seeking to condone the delay and notice was directed. Be that as it may.
11. In the light of the above cited decision and for reasons alike, this Court is of the view that the impugned Assessment Orders, being a composite show cause notice and composite order covering different tax period, is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.
12. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. Writ Petition is allowed.
13. Needless to observe that respondent No.4 is at liberty to issue separate notices in respect of relevant tax periods and proceed with the assessments in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to the petitioner. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
14. Before parting with the matter, it is pertinent to mention here that the Division Bench of this Court in S J Constructions (referred to supra) dealt with the issue of issuance of composite notices and passing of composite orders by the Officers of the Department elaborately.
15. Passing of composite orders by the officers concerned, despite the decision in SJ Constructions is facilitating filing of the writ petitions and the same cannot be countenanced.
16. Therefore, the respondent-Department shall submit data / report with regard to passing of composite orders by the individual officers after decision in S J Construction and writ petitions filed against the said orders, before the Registry on or before 16.09.2026.