New Md Haneef And Brothers vs. The Superintendent Of Central Tax
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following order:
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION No: 7948 OF 2025
ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ravula Nagarjuna, learned Junior Standing Counsel for CBIC representing respondent No.
With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of.
Petitioner, a registered dealer is an assessee on the rolls of respondent No.2 under the provisions of CGST Act. Aggrieved by the Order in Original dated 15.01.2025 passed by the 1st respondent, the present writ petition is filed.
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 passed by the 1st respondent for the tax period 2017-18 to 2023-24 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. The Assistant Commissioner & Others (W.P No.11028 of 2025 & batch), dated 17.09.2025, wherein, it was 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.
4
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.”
Learned Junior Standing Counsel has not disputed the legal position, much less the factual aspects with regard to passing of composite order impugned in the writ petition.
In view of the factual and legal position, the impugned order dated 15.01.2025 is set aside. However, the 1st 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.
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.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, as indicated above.
5
There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J
_______________ T.C.D.SEKHAR, J
GVK
6
285 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION No. 7948 of 2025
Dt. 29.07.2026
GVK
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.