Vasavi Suppliers vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Central Tax
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following Order:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S A V Sai Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Tax.
Petitioner, a proprietorship firm registered under Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short “the Act”) with GSTIN: 37AEZPC1690P1ZM, is engaged in the business of Pandal or Shamiana renting services, aggrieved by common Assessment Order dated 23.02.2026 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., 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 is not sustainable in the light of the decisions rendered by this Court in W.P No.11028 of 2025 etc., and seeks to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders.
On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader, Mr. S A V Sai Kumar, submits that the petitioner has remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and instead of filing an appeal, the present writ petition is filed and the same cannot be entertained.
This Court has considered the submissions made and perused material on record.
Admittedly, order dated 23.02.2026 of the respondent No.1 covers the tax period of 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-222. At this stage, the learned counsel also submits that in fact, composite show cause notice dated 26.09.2025 was issued and thereafter, a composite Assessment order was passed. Be that as it may.
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 orders are set aside. Writ Petition is allowed, 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.
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.
__________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
_____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Date:07.07.2026 Ksj
Whether the order is: Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No
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.