Facts of the Case

M/s Golden Globe Infra Private Limited, a registered person under the GST regime, was served with an Order-in-Original dated 04 February 2026, bearing DIN 3704022668299, passed by the first respondent, Assistant Commissioner (ST), Ananthapuramu-II Circle.

The impugned Order-in-Original covered multiple financial years in a consolidated manner, namely:

  • FY 2020-21
  • FY 2021-22
  • FY 2022-23

Aggrieved by the consolidated assessment, the petitioner approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner sought a writ declaring the impugned assessment order illegal, arbitrary and violative of:

  • principles of natural justice;
  • Article 14 of the Constitution of India;
  • Article 21 of the Constitution of India; and
  • Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

Although various grounds of challenge were raised in the writ petition, the petitioner primarily pressed the contention that a single assessment order covering more than one financial year violates Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act, 2017.

The High Court therefore confined its adjudication to this principal issue and left the petitioner’s other grounds open.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a single consolidated GST assessment order can legally cover more than one financial year.
  2. Whether a composite Order-in-Original for FY 2020-21, FY 2021-22 and FY 2022-23 is permissible under Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act, 2017.
  3. Whether GST adjudication must be undertaken separately for each financial year once the due date for filing the annual return has been reached.
  4. Whether a single show-cause notice can validly encompass multiple tax periods or multiple financial years.
  5. Whether the impugned consolidated assessment order dated 04 February 2026 was liable to be set aside solely on the ground that it covered more than one financial year.
  6. Whether the High Court should adjudicate the petitioner’s remaining grounds after accepting the primary challenge to the composite assessment order.
  7. Whether the GST authorities could be permitted to initiate fresh proceedings separately for each assessment year.
  8. Whether the period during which the impugned assessment order remained operative should be excluded while computing limitation for fresh proceedings.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner raised several grounds challenging the impugned Order-in-Original.

However, before the High Court, the petitioner specifically pressed the primary contention that:

a single assessment order issued for more than one financial year is contrary to Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act, 2017.

The petitioner argued that the impugned order consolidated three separate financial years—2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23—into one assessment proceeding and one Order-in-Original.

According to the petitioner, such a consolidated approach was impermissible under the statutory framework governing GST adjudication.

The petitioner relied upon the Division Bench ruling of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in:

W.P. No. 11028 of 2025 & batch

where the Court had already considered the legality of a single show-cause notice or composite assessment order covering more than one tax period or financial year.

The petitioner therefore sought setting aside of the consolidated Order-in-Original.

Respondents’ Arguments

The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appeared for the respondents.

The order records that the petitioner had raised various grounds but pressed the principal ground concerning the composite nature of the assessment order.

The High Court considered the issue in light of the binding Division Bench decision in W.P. No. 11028 of 2025 & batch.

The judgment does not record any separate detailed substantive counter-argument by the respondents capable of displacing the legal principle already laid down by the Division Bench concerning composite GST proceedings for multiple tax periods or financial years.

Accordingly, the matter was decided on the petitioner’s primary ground concerning the consolidated assessment.

Court Order / Findings

1. Single Composite Assessment for Multiple Financial Years Is Impermissible

The Andhra Pradesh High Court noted that the impugned Order-in-Original dated 04 February 2026 covered the period:

FY 2020-21 to FY 2022-23.

The Court recognised that the order was therefore a composite assessment covering more than one financial year.

2. Division Bench Precedent in W.P. No. 11028 of 2025 & Batch Followed

The Court expressly relied upon its earlier Division Bench ruling in:

W.P. No. 11028 of 2025 & batch

The High Court recorded the legal principle laid down in that batch of cases: a single show-cause notice or a single composite assessment order cannot be passed in relation to more than one tax period of a month where assessment is taken up before the due date for filing the annual return, or for more than one year where the due date for filing the annual return has been reached.

This principle directly governed the petitioner’s case because the impugned Order-in-Original covered three financial years.

3. Court Decided the Writ Petition on the Primary Ground Alone

The petitioner had raised various grounds of challenge against the assessment order.

However, since the petitioner pressed the primary ground that the Order-in-Original was an impermissible composite assessment order, the Court disposed of the writ petition on that issue alone.

The Court expressly left the other grounds of challenge open.

4. Impugned Order Dated 04 February 2026 Set Aside

The High Court set aside the impugned Order-in-Original dated 04 February 2026.

The decisive defect was that the order consolidated assessment for multiple financial years instead of proceeding separately for each relevant assessment year.

5. Matter Remanded to GST Authorities

The Court remanded the matter back to the respondents.

However, the remand was not for continuation of the same composite assessment proceeding.

Instead, the Court specifically left it open to the respondents to:

initiate fresh proceedings for each assessment year separately.

Thus, any further action by the GST authorities must conform to the requirement of year-wise proceedings.

6. Limitation Period Protected

The Court directed that the period:

from the date of issuance of the impugned assessment order until the date of receipt of the High Court’s order

shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation.

This direction protects the statutory ability of the authorities to initiate fresh proceedings separately for each assessment year, subject to law.

7. Other Grounds Left Open

The High Court did not adjudicate the petitioner’s other grounds of challenge.

Those grounds remain open and are not foreclosed by disposal of the writ petition on the composite-assessment issue.

Final Result

·         Writ Petition Disposed Of.

·         Composite GST Order-in-Original dated 04 February 2026 set aside.

·         Matter remanded to the respondents.

·         GST authorities permitted to initiate fresh proceedings separately for each assessment year.

·         Period from issuance of the impugned assessment order until receipt of the High Court order excluded for limitation purposes.

·         Other grounds of challenge left open.

·         No order as to costs.

·         Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were closed.

Important Clarification

The principal legal clarification emerging from the judgment is:

A single show-cause notice or single composite GST assessment order cannot be used to consolidate multiple financial years where the statutory framework under Sections 73 and 74 requires tax-period or financial-year-specific adjudication.

The judgment further clarifies that:

  • A composite GST assessment covering FY 2020-21, FY 2021-22 and FY 2022-23 is legally vulnerable.
  • Separate assessment proceedings should be initiated for each financial year.
  • The GST authority cannot cure an impermissible multi-year composite order merely because all periods concern the same registered person.
  • Where a composite order is set aside, the authority may be permitted to initiate fresh proceedings year-wise.
  • A High Court may decide a writ petition on one foundational jurisdictional or statutory defect without adjudicating all remaining grounds.
  • Other grounds not decided by the Court remain open.
  • While setting aside a defective composite order, the Court may exclude the intervening period for limitation purposes.
  • The ruling is important for GST show-cause notices and adjudication orders involving multiple years under Sections 73 and 74.

Sections / Constitutional Provisions Involved

·         Article 226 of the Constitution of India – Writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

·         Article 14 of the Constitution of India – Equality before law and protection against arbitrary State action; invoked by the petitioner.

·         Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Invoked by the petitioner in challenging the impugned assessment order.

·         Article 300A of the Constitution of India – Protection against deprivation of property except by authority of law; invoked by the petitioner.

·         Section 73 of the GST Act, 2017 – Determination of tax not paid, short paid, erroneously refunded or ITC wrongly availed/utilised in cases other than fraud or wilful misstatement/suppression under the applicable statutory framework.

·         Section 74 of the GST Act, 2017 – Determination involving allegations of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts under the applicable statutory framework.

·         Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure – Invoked in the interim application seeking stay of the impugned assessment order.

Link to download the order - https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783496947_1467compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.