Single Composite Assessment Order Covering Multiple Tax Periods Under Section 73 Is Legally Invalid
Single Composite Assessment Order Covering Multiple Tax Periods Under Section 73 Is Legally Invalid
Issue
Whether an Order-in-Original issued under Section 73 of the CGST / APGST Act, 2017 covering multiple tax periods (2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22) in a single, consolidated order is legally permissible.
Facts
-
Business Profile: The petitioner is a GST-registered manufacturing unit engaged in the manufacture and supply of bakery and confectionery products.
-
Composite Proceeding: Respondent No. 2 issued a single composite assessment order spanning three distinct financial years: 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22.
-
Writ Challenge: The petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge the legality and validity of issuing a single composite order for multiple assessment periods.
Decision
-
Impermissible Period Clubbing: The High Court held that conducting a composite adjudication for more than one tax period—prior to the due date for the annual return or across multiple financial years post-due date—is legally impermissible under Section 73.
-
Set Aside Composite Order: Following the established precedent of the co-ordinate bench, the Court ruled that the consolidated Order-in-Original clubbing 2019 to 2022 could not stand.
-
Writ Allowed: The impugned assessment order was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed in favor of the assessee without needing to address other merits.
Key Takeaways
-
Separate Orders for Separate Financial Years: Tax authorities cannot club multiple financial years or tax periods into a single composite assessment order or show-cause notice under Section 73.
-
Period-Specific Limitation & Adjudication: Each tax period/financial year has its own statutory timelines, limitation periods, and annual return due dates, requiring independent assessment proceedings.
-
Jurisdictional Defect: Passing a consolidated order covering multiple tax periods constitutes a fundamental jurisdictional defect that invalidates the resulting adjudication order.
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Bindu Recepies (P.) Ltd.
v.
Union of India
Ninala Jayasurya and T.C.D. Sekhar, JJ.
WRIT PETITION NO. 21718 of 2026
AUGUST 4, 2026
Mohd Mukhairuddin, Counsel for the Petitioner.
ORDER
T.C.D. Sekhar, J.- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Smt. Santhi Chandra, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC.
2. Petitioner, a manufacturing unit registered under Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short “the Act”) with GSTIN:37AAECB5549G2ZJ, is engaged in the business of manufacture and supply of bakery and confectionery products, aggrieved by the Order in Original dated 30.03.2026, 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 order of respondent No.2 covering tax period for the different Assessment Years i.e., 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 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 order.
4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel, while refuting the said contentions sought to sustain the impugned order. Her 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 is a composite order covering the tax periods 2019 to 2022.
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. In the light of the above cited decision and for reasons alike, the impugned orders are set aside. Writ Petition is allowed, as indicated above.
9. Needless to observe that respondent No.2 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.
10. 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. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.