M/S. Sri Raja Rajeswari Traders vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Central Tax

Held

The Court held that the impugned Order-in-Original dated March 26, 2026, is liable to be set aside. The primary reason for this decision is that the order is a composite order covering multiple tax periods, specifically 2019-2020 to 2021-2022. The Court relied on the decision of a co-ordinate Bench in S J Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner & ors. (W.P No.11028 of 2025) dated September 17, 2025. In that case, the Court 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. The Court found 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 orders of assessment under Section 73 or Section 74. The ratio decidendi is that composite orders for multiple tax periods are invalid. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and permitted the respondent No.1 to issue separate notices for each relevant tax period and proceed with assessments in accordance with the law, after providing an opportunity to the petitioner. The period from the date of the impugned order to the receipt of this order was excluded for limitation purposes.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sri Raja Rajeswari Traders, a registered dealer under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, engaged in the supply of fuel oil, filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original dated March 26, 2026, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax. The impugned order covered multiple tax periods, specifically Assessment Years 2019-2020 to 2021-2022. The petitioner contended that this composite order was unsustainable. The revenue argued that the petitioner should have availed the remedy of appeal instead of filing a writ petition and that an appeal had been preferred before the Supreme Court against a relevant precedent.

Key Issues

1. Whether a composite Order-in-Original covering multiple tax periods (2019-2020 to 2021-2022) is sustainable under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in light of Section 74(3) and 74(4) of the Act? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order is not sustainable, relying on the decision of this Court in S J Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner & ors. (W.P No.11028 of 2025) dated September 17, 2025, which held that a single composite order for multiple tax periods is impermissible. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner failed to avail the statutory remedy of appeal. While not disputing the precedent cited by the petitioner, the revenue stated that an appeal had been preferred before the Supreme Court against that decision, and a notice in the delay petition had been ordered.