Rambo Communications vs. Assistant Director
Held
The Court held that a single composite assessment order issued for more than one financial year is violative of the provisions of Section 73 and Section 74 of the GST Act, 2017. The Court relied on a Division Bench judgment in W.P.No.11028 of 2025 & batch, which held that a single show-cause notice or a single composite assessment order cannot be passed for more than one tax period. Consequently, the impugned order of assessment dated October 29, 2025, was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings for each assessment year separately. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the disputed tax within six weeks. Any payments already made or recovered after the impugned order would be adjusted against this 20%. The period from the issuance of the impugned order to the receipt of this order was excluded for limitation purposes.
Facts
The petitioner, Rambo Communications, challenged a composite order of assessment dated October 29, 2025, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Anantapur (Respondent No. 2). This order covered multiple financial years, from 2018-19 to 2023-24. The petitioner also sought to stay the collection of disputed tax amounting to Rs. 128,08,100 + Rs. 1,04,000 and penalties of Rs. 128,08,100 + Rs. 128,08,100, along with unquantified interest. The challenge was primarily based on the contention that a single assessment order for multiple tax periods is impermissible under the GST Act.
Key Issues
1. Whether a single order of assessment issued for more than one financial year is violative of the provisions of Section 73 and Section 74 of the GST Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that a composite assessment order covering multiple financial years is impermissible and violates Section 73 and Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017. They relied on a previous Division Bench judgment of the High Court. The respondents, represented by the Assistant Director, DGGI, and the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, did not record any specific arguments against this primary contention in the judgment. However, they were the authorities who issued the impugned show-cause notice, summary, and assessment orders.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
APHC010198512026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 11340/2026 Between:
RAMBO COMMUNICATIONS, REPRESENTED BY THE KARTHA OF THE HUF (PROPRIETOR) SRI RENTALA VENKATA NARAYANA, ROOM NO.4, POLICE CLUB ROOMS, POLICE COMPLEX, ANANTAPUR, ANDHRA PRADESH 515001
...PETITIONER AND 1. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, O/O DIRECTOR GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE,
DOOR NO28-14-17, SURYABAGH, BESIDE MELODY THEATRE, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH - PIN 520 020. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, ANANTAPUR CGST DIVISION, DOOR NO 28-999, 1ST FLOOR, GST BHAWAN, BESIDE MONTESSORI SCHOOL,
SANGAMESH NAGAR, ANANTAPUR, ANDHRA PRADESH. - PIN 515001,
UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, NORTH BLOCK, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI-PIN 110 001. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.