Rajesh Chemicals vs. Additional Commissioner(St)
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following Order: (per Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.A.V.Sai Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. With the consent of learned counsel on both sides, this Writ Petition is being disposed of, at the stage of admission.
Petitioner, a proprietary concern registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and A.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017, aggrieved by common Assessment Order dated 11.02.2025 filed the present writ petition on various grounds.
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.1 covering tax period for the different Assessment Years i.e., 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020- 21 is not sustainable, in the light of the decision rendered by this Court in S J Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner & ors. (W.P No.11028 of 2025) dated 17.09.2025., and seeks to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders.
On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader refutes the contention insofar as following the procedure contemplated under Rule 142(1A) of the Central Rules i.e., with regard to issuance of notice prior to finalizing the assessment. He also submits that the petitioner having received the notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 16.05.2022 and submitted its objections dated 03.06.2022. Having not satisfied with the objections, rejected the same and Assessment Order was passed on 11.02.2025 and that the petitioner instead of availing the statutory remedies straightaway approached this Court, therefore, writ petition is liable to be dismissed. However, he has not disputed the decision rendered by this Court in S J Constructions (referred to supra).
This Court has considered the submissions made and perused material on record.
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 2017-18 to 2020-21. 8. In W.P No.11028 of 2025 & 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.
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.”
In the light of the above cited decision and for reasons alike, the impugned order is set aside. Writ Petition is disposed of, as indicated above.
Needless to observe that respondent No.1 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, however, subject to condition of the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
_____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Date:31.07.2026 Ksj
Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.