Yella Ramanjaneyulu vs. Tthe Dy. Assistant Commissioner(St)-Ii

Held

The Court held that the impugned order was liable to be set aside on the ground that it was a composite order covering multiple tax periods (2021-22 and 2022-23). The Court relied on its previous decision 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 in relation to more than one tax period. The reasoning was that permitting such composite orders would impact the registered person's right to obtain benefits under Section 128 of the APGST Act and the right to invoke the remedy of appeal against assessment orders under Sections 73 or 74. The Court set aside the impugned order. As a conditional relief, the petitioner was directed to deposit 20% of the disputed tax within six weeks, failing which the impugned order would stand revived. The Court also noted that any amount already deposited by the petitioner towards the disputed tax would be given credit.

Facts

The petitioner, Yella Ramanjaneyulu, a registered dealer under the GST Act, challenged an attachment notice dated 20.11.2025, issued by the Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST) in FORM GST DRC-16. This notice was based on an order in FORM GST DRC-07 dated 02.09.2024, issued by the same authority for the tax periods 2021-22 and 2022-23. The petitioner argued that the impugned order was unsustainable, citing a previous judgment by the High Court. The respondents contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had not availed the remedy of appeal, although they did not dispute the cited precedent. The respondents also mentioned an appeal filed before the Supreme Court against the precedent judgment.

Key Issues

1. Whether a composite order covering multiple tax periods (2021-22 and 2022-23) is sustainable in law, particularly in light of Section 74(3) and 74(4) of the GST Act and the principles of statutory interpretation? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the impugned attachment notice and the underlying order were unsustainable, relying on the High Court's decision in S J Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner & ors. (W.P No.11028 of 2025), which held that a single composite order for multiple tax periods is impermissible. The petitioner sought to have the impugned orders set aside. Revenue's Argument: The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable because the petitioner had directly approached the High Court instead of availing the statutory remedy of appeal. However, they did not dispute the correctness of the decision in S J Constructions, but stated that an appeal had been filed before the Supreme Court against it, with notice ordered on a delay petition.