M/S. Chandu Lavanya Engineers And Contractors vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax

Held

The Court held that the impugned order, being a composite order covering multiple tax periods (2019-20 to 2023-24), was liable to be set aside. The Court relied on the decision of a co-ordinate Bench 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 their right to invoke the remedy of appeal against orders of assessment under Section 73 or Section 74. The Court found it unnecessary to examine other contentions raised by the petitioner. The impugned order was set aside, and the writ petition was disposed of. The respondent was granted liberty to issue separate notices for relevant tax periods and proceed with assessments after providing an opportunity to the petitioner. No costs were awarded.

Facts

M/s. Chandu Lavanya Engineers and Contractors, a registered dealer under the GST Act, filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original dated March 17, 2026, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax. This order covered multiple tax periods, specifically from 2019-20 to 2023-24. The petitioner argued that the composite order was unsustainable, citing a previous decision by the High Court. The revenue contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner should have availed the remedy of appeal, although they did not dispute the cited High Court decision. The revenue also noted that an appeal had been preferred before the Supreme Court against that decision.

Key Issues

1. Whether a composite order covering multiple tax periods (2019-20 to 2023-24) is sustainable under the GST Act, particularly in light of Section 74(3) and 74(4) of the Act and the principle that such orders can impact the right to appeal or avail benefits under Section 128 of the APGST Act. Petitioner's contention: The impugned composite order is not sustainable, relying on the High Court's decision in S J Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner & ors. (W.P No.11028 of 2025). Revenue's contention: The writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner should have pursued the appellate remedy. However, they did not dispute the precedent set in S J Constructions but stated an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.