Composite Adjudication Order Covering Multiple Tax Periods Under GST Is Unsustainable And Impermissible In Law

By | August 19, 2026
0 Comment
Composite Adjudication Order Covering Multiple Tax Periods Under GST Is Unsustainable And Impermissible In Law

Issue

Whether the issuance of a single composite adjudication order covering multiple tax periods (2019-20 and 2020-21) under Section 61 of the CGST/APGST Act, 2017 is legally permissible, or whether separate orders are required for each individual tax period.

Facts

  • Taxpayer Status: The petitioner is a registered firm under the Goods and Services Tax framework.
  • Assessment Periods: Adjudication proceedings pertained to multiple tax periods, specifically Assessment Years 2019-20 and 2020-21.
  • Impugned Action: The tax authority issued a single, consolidated/composite adjudication order covering both tax periods simultaneously.
  • Writ Challenge: Aggrieved by the composite nature of the order, the petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction challenging its legal sustainability.
  • Revenue’s Position: The Revenue did not dispute the factual aspect of issuing a composite order or the legal position governing multi-period assessments.

Decision

  • Validity of Composite Order: In favor of Assessee. The composite adjudication order spanning multiple tax periods was held to be legally unsustainable and was set aside.
  • Remand & Fresh Adjudication: Matter remanded. The adjudicating authority was granted liberty to issue separate, period-specific orders for each tax period after affording the petitioner a fair opportunity of being heard.
  • Exclusion for Limitation: The period from the date of the impugned composite order until the receipt of the court’s order was directed to be excluded while computing limitation for fresh proceedings.

Key Takeaways

  • Period-Specific Adjudication: Under GST laws, each tax period constitutes an independent unit of assessment, necessitating separate show cause notices and separate adjudication orders.
  • Impermissibility of Consolidation: Bundling distinct financial/tax years into a single consolidated order violates procedural mandates and invalidates the resulting order.
  • Limitation Savings on Remand: When a composite order is quashed on procedural or jurisdictional grounds, time spent during the invalidated proceedings is excluded from limitation computations to allow lawful re-adjudication.
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Kanaka Reddy Seerapu
v.
Union of India
Ninala Jayasurya and T.C.D. Sekhar, JJ.
WRIT PETITION NO. 21576 OF 2026
AUGUST  4, 2026
C. Sanjeeva Rao, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Ms. Santhi Chandra, Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondent.
ORDER
Ninala Jayasurya, J.- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Santhi Chandra, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department appearing for respondent Nos.2 & 3. With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.
2. Petitioner a registered firm, is served with composite order dated 03.02.2026 under Section 74 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act (in short ‘CGST Act’). Aggrieved by the said order dated 03.02.2026 passed by the 2nd 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 of the 2nd respondent for the tax period 2019-20 and 2020-21 covering multiple tax periods is impermissible in Law under the provisions of CGST Act. He also placed reliance on the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.J. Constructions v. Assistant Commissioner [2025]  102 GSTL 348 (Andhra Pradesh)/(W.P. No. 11028 of 2025 & batch), dated 17.09.2025, wherein, it was held as follows:
“17. Section 74(3) is in pari materia 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 Standing Counsel has not disputed the legal position, much less the factual aspects with regard to issuance of composite order impugned in the writ petition.
5. In view of the factual and legal position, the impugned order dated 03.02.2026 is set aside. However, the 2nd respondent is at liberty to issue separate orders for each assessment year and proceed with the assessments in respect of tax periods in question, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, in accordance with Law.
6. Further, 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.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, as indicated above.
8. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.