Composite GST Show Cause Notices Covering Multiple Financial

Composite GST Show Cause Notices Covering Multiple Financial Years Are Legally Unsustainable And Must Be Quashed

Issue

Whether a consolidated Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act covering multiple financial years (2019–20 to 2021–22) is legally sustainable, or if the tax authorities are mandated to issue separate notices for each individual assessment year.

Facts

The respondent tax authorities issued a single, consolidated Show Cause Notice (SCN) to the petitioner, clubbing demands across multiple financial years from 2019–20 to 2021–22.
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the validity of this composite notice, arguing that multi-year consolidated demands are unsustainable under the GST framework.
The petitioner relied on binding Division Bench judgments within the same jurisdiction that explicitly prohibited the grouping of multiple assessment periods into a single notice.
The petitioner sought to have the composite notice quashed, requesting that the department be directed to issue separate, year-wise notices instead.

Decision

The High Court found merit in the petitioner’s arguments, holding that the issue was fully covered by binding precedents of its own Division Bench, and subsequently quashed the composite SCN.
The tax department was granted the liberty to initiate fresh proceedings by issuing distinct, individual SCNs for each respective financial year.
To protect the revenue’s timeline, the court directed that the entire period from the issuance date of the original composite notice until the receipt of the certified copy of this judgment must be excluded when calculating the statutory limitation period for the fresh notices.
The court clarified that it did not adjudicate on the actual tax merits of the case, leaving all other legal and factual contentions open for the fresh proceedings.

Key Takeaways

Year-Wise Adjudication is Mandatory: Under Section 73, each financial year constitutes an independent unit of assessment. The revenue department cannot club multiple years into a single, rolling composite notice to simplify its administrative workload.
Precedential Binding Force: Single-judge benches are strictly bound by the procedural tax mandates and legal principles established by higher Division Benches within the same jurisdiction.
Tolling of Limitation Periods: When a court quashes a departmental notice on purely technical or procedural grounds, it typically excludes the litigation window from the statute of limitations, ensuring a taxpayer cannot escape a substantive audit solely due to administrative errors.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AMR Vision

Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax

R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar, JJ.

WRIT PETITION NO. 10393 of 2025

JUNE 16, 2026

Shaik Jeelani Basha for the Petitioner. Kunuku Durga Prasad, Standing Counsel for the Respondent.

ORDER

R. Raghunandan Rao, J.- The petitioner was served with a Summary of the order, in FORM GST DRC-07, dated 03.09.2024, passed by the 2^nd respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”] for the period July 2017-March 2018. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

2. This assessment order is challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said proceeding does not contain the signature of the assessing officer.

3. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, submits that there is no signature of the assessing officer, on the impugned assessment order.

4. The effect of the absence of the signature, on an assessment order was earlier considered by this Court, in the case of A V Bhanoji Row v. Asstt. Commissioner (ST) 94 GSTL 430 (A.P.)/W.P.No.2830 of 2023, decided on 14.02.2023. A Division Bench of this Court, had held that the signature, on the assessment order, cannot be dispensed with and that the provisions of Sections-160 & 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, would not rectify such a defect. Following this Judgment, another Division Bench of this Court, in the case of SRK Enterprises v. Asstt. Commissioner (ST) [2023] [2024] 102 GST 450/82 GSTL 142 (A.P.)/W.P.No.29397 of 2023, decided on 10.11.2023, had set aside the impugned assessment order.

5. Another Division Bench of this Court by its Judgment, dated 19.03.2024, in the case of SRS Traders v. Asstt. Commissioner (ST) (A.P.)/W.P.No.5238 of 2024, following the aforesaid two Judgments, had held that the absence of the signature of the assessing officer, on the assessment order, would render the assessment order invalid and set aside the said order.

6. Following the aforesaid Judgments, the impugned assessment order would have to be set aside on account of the absence of the signature of the assessing officer, on the impugned assessment order.

7. This Court is also cogent of the fact that the impugned order has been passed some time back and the present Writ Petition has been filed with delay. However, Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 stipulates that service of notice or orders, without signature, would not amount to service at all. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras, in Tvl. Deepa Traders v. Deputy Commissioner (ST) [2024] 106 GST 584/90 GSTL 411 (Mad)/W.P.No.19277 of 2024, dated 13.08.2024 had held the same view. Consequently, there is no service of the impugned order even as of today, on account of the absence of signature on the impugned proceeding. In those circumstances, the delay in approaching this Court would not be a relevant factor.

8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned Summary of the Order, dated 03.09.2024, issued by the 2^nd respondent, with liberty to the 2^nd respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving notice and by assigning a signature to the said order. The period from the date of the impugned assessment order, till the date of receipt of this order shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation. There shall be no order as to costs.

9. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.