Sai Taj Constructions vs. The Union Of INDIA

SAI TAJ CONSTRUCTIONS, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SIRIGIRI RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, 28/820/C2 UPSTAIR, NGOS COLONY, NANDYAL, KURNOOL, ANDHRA PRADESH, 518501. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE,NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI- 110001 AND OTHERS

THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, TIRUPATI COST COMMISSIONERATE, 9/86A, AMARAVATHI NAGAR, WEST CHURCH COMPOUND, TIRUPATI-517502. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, KURNOOL GST DIVISION, NEAR CHILDRENS PARK, N R PETA, KURNOOL-518001. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE, VISHAKAPATNAM ZONAL UNIT, DOOR NO.28-14- 17, SURYABAGH, BESIDE MELODY THEATRE, VISHAKAPATNAM- 530020. 5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST, NANDYAL-II CIRCLE, O/O. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST), D. NO. 25/3A AND 3B, MSR COMPLEX, OPP MEDICARE HOSPITAL, NEAR RTC BUS STAND, NANDYAL-518501. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a direction or Order, more particularly in the nature of a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, declaring the impugned Order vide Order In Original No. 22/2024-25 (GST) dated 08-01- 2025 issued for the period 2017- 18 to 2019-20 and the three summary orders vide FORM DRC- 07's dated 04-02-2025, for issuance of common order/notice for multiple financial years in total violation of legal provisions under GST enactments as non-est and void ab-initio, without juri iction, illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 19(l)(g) and 300A of the Indian Constitution, and/or pass such other order orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and/or or declaring the action of Respondent No.3 in issuance of impugned order dated 08-01-2025 on the same subject matter, where the Respondent No.5 initiated the proceedings for FY 2019-20 is in violation of Section 6(2)(b) of the3 CGST Act, 2017, as non-est and void ab-initio, without juri iction, illegal, arbitrary,and violative of Articles 19(l)(g) and 300A of the Indian Constitution, and/or pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant an interim stay relief by restrain the Respondents from initiating any action to recover the demands confirmed under the impugned Order vide Order In Original No. 22/2024-25 (GST) dated 08-01-2025 issued for the period 2017-18 to 2019-20 pending disposal of this Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

The petitioner is a registered Company, which has been served with an Order, dated 08.01.2025, passed by the 3rd respondent. This Order of Assessment covers the period from 2017-2018 to 2019-2020. 3. The petitioner, after having raised various grounds of challenge, has pressed the ground that, a single assessment order passed, for more than one financial year, would be violative of the provisions of Section 73 and Section 74 of the G.S.T. Act, 2017, and consequently, set aside the orders of assessment/appeals.

A Division Bench of this Court, in W.P.No.11028 of 2025 & batch, after considering the said question, had held 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.

The petitioner has raised various grounds of challenge. However, the petitioner is pressing the primary ground of the order being a composite order.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned order, dated 08.01.2025, leaving it open to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings, for each assessment year separately.

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. There shall be no order as to costs.

2026