Vnr Traders vs. The Superintendent Of Central Tax

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 11.12.2025 filed the present writ petition on various grounds.

Learned counsel for petitioner inter alia contends that the impugned Assessment Order is liable to be set aside as the same is violative of principles of natural justice inasmuch as before passing the Assessment Order, the proper officer failed to follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 142(1A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, etc. He further submits that respondent No.1 passed a composite order for the tax period 2019-20, 2020-2021, 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 and the same is not sustainable, in the light of the judgments rendered by this Court.

In addition, he also submits that the Summary Orders are unsigned and as such, lacks legal efficacy. He also relies on the decision of this Court in SRK Enterprises reported in (2023)13 Centax 60 (A.P.) in (W.P No.29397 of 2023 dated 10.11.2023). He also submits that petitioner, even on merits, have a good case, hence, urges for allowing the writ petition.

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 notices failed to submit reply and Assessment Order was passed on 11.12.2025 and that the petitioner instead of availing the statutory remedies straightaway approached this Court, therefore, writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

We have considered the submissions made and perused material on record.

At the outset, it may be appropriate to mention that though learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even on merits, petitioner has got a good case, we are not inclined to examine the same more particularly, since writ petition is otherwise deserves to be allowed on the ground of passing a composite Assessment Order by respondent No.1 for tax periods i.e., 2019- 20, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24, which is not sustainable.

Though learned Assistant Government Pleader, on oral instructions, has submitted that prior notices were issued to the petitioner before passing the Assessment Order in question, at this stage, we deem it not necessary to examine the matter by inviting counter-affidavit. Even otherwise, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned Assessment Order and Summary Orders dated 11.12.2025 are unsigned also merits acceptance. Be that as it may.

As noted earlier the order under challenge is not sustainable being composite order. In similar circumstances, vide order dated 10.11.2023 in W.P No.29397 of 2023, a Co-ordinate Bench held as follows:

In the light of the above cited decision and for reasons alike, the instant Writ Petition is disposed of.

However in the light of the submission that Assessment Order is passed in the year 2025, impugned order is set aside, subject to condition of petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax, within a period of four (04) weeks from today.

In default, of the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax within the stipulated time, it is open for the respondents to proceed in the matter in accordance with law.

Needless to observe that amount, if any, already deposited by the petitioner shall be given credit to. Respondent No.1 is at liberty to pass appropriate orders, after issuing separate notices for different tax periods and affording opportunity to the petitioner, in accordance with law. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.