Single Composite GST Assessment Order Covering Multiple Tax

Single Composite GST Assessment Order Covering Multiple Tax Periods Is Invalid and Set Aside

Issue

Whether a single composite assessment order passed under Section 73 of the CGST/APGST Act, 2017 covering multiple assessment years/periods (FY 2019-20 to 2023-24 and 2024-25) is legally sustainable.

Facts

Assessee Profile: The petitioner is a GST-registered proprietary concern dealing in handloom sarees and registered under the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent.
Composite Action: The 1st respondent issued a single composite summary/assessment order dated 23.12.2025 that covered multiple tax periods (from FY 2019-20 to 2023-24 and FY 2024-25).
Writ Challenge: The petitioner challenged the single composite assessment order by invoking writ jurisdiction before the High Court.
Precedent Relied Upon: The petitioner argued that issuing a common composite order for multiple assessment years is impermissible, placing reliance on the precedent laid down in S J Constructions v. Asstt. Commissioner.
Revenue’s Stance: The Government Pleader did not dispute the factual position or the settled legal principle regarding the invalidity of composite orders covering multiple years.

Decision

Inapplicability of Composite Orders: The High Court held that the legal principle barring single composite assessment orders across multiple financial years was squarely applicable.
Setting Aside Order: The single composite summary/assessment order dated 23.12.2025 was declared unsustainable and set aside.
Liberty to Re-initiate: The writ petition was allowed in favor of the assessee on this preliminary ground, leaving all other grounds open and granting the Revenue liberty to initiate fresh, year-wise assessment proceedings separately.

Key Takeaways

Year-Wise Adjudication Mandate: Under Section 73 of the CGST/APGST Act, assessment and demand proceedings must be initiated and adjudicated separately for each assessment year; bundling multiple tax periods into a single composite order is a jurisdictional defect.
Quashing Without Barring Fresh Action: Setting aside a composite order on procedural/jurisdictional grounds does not absolve tax liability; the Revenue retains the right to issue separate, individual notices and orders for each respective assessment year.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

GSR Handlooms

Assistant Commissioner ST

Ninala Jayasurya and T.C.D. Sekhar, JJ.

WRIT PETITION NO. 26316 OF 2026^†

SEPTEMBER 17, 2026

K. Raghavender Reddy, Counsel for the Respondent.

ORDER

Ninala Jayasurya, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Kalyan Chakravarthy, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for the respondents. With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

2. Petitioner, a registered taxpayer is proprietary concern engaged in business of dealing in handloom sarees (woven fabrics of cotton, HSN 5208), is an assessee on the rolls of respondent No.1 with GSTIN No.37BLQPG0546R1ZE. Aggrieved by the impugned summary order dated 23.12.2025 passed by the 1^st 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 dated 23.12.2025 passed by the 1^st respondent for the tax period 2019-20 to 2023-24 & 2024-25 covering multiple tax periods is impermissible in Law under the provisions of Central Goods and Service Tax Act. He also placed reliance on the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S J Constructions v. Asstt. Commissioner 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 Government Pleader has not disputed the legal position, much less the factual aspects with regard to passing of composite order impugned in the writ petition.

5. The petitioner has raised various grounds of challenge. However, the petitioner is pressing the primary ground of the order being composite assessment order by placing reliance on the above cited decision and the principle is equally applicable to the case on hand. In that view of the matter, the present writ petition is being disposed of, on this ground of challenge, leaving open the other grounds of challenge.

6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned summary order dated 23.12.2025, leaving it open to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings, for each assessment year separately.

7. This order, however, shall be subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax, within a period of six (06) weeks, from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Any payment made by the petitioner, after the impugned order, had been passed, shall be set off, for the purpose of calculating the aforesaid 10%.

8. In view of setting aside of impugned order, all consequential proceedings shall stand revoked.

9. Needless to say, 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.

10. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.