Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeGSTComposite Assessment Order for Multiple FY Impermissible U/s 73, 74 of CGST...

Composite Assessment Order for Multiple FY Impermissible U/s 73, 74 of CGST Act: AP HC

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside a composite assessment order passed under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, holding that a single assessment order cannot cover multiple financial years. 

The bench of  Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar directed the GST department to initiate separate proceedings for each assessment year, while preserving their right to proceed afresh in accordance with law. 

The petitioner challenged an assessment order passed under Section 74 of the GST Act covering the tax period from January 2020 to September 2022, spanning multiple financial years. The petitioner contended that the order was illegal on several grounds, including that the assessment was barred by limitation for certain financial years. No opportunity of cross-examination was granted, violating the principles of natural justice. A single consolidated assessment order had been passed for multiple assessment years, contrary to law and earlier judicial precedents. 

Buy Now: GST Judgements E-Compilation – June 2026

During the hearing, the petitioner primarily relied upon an earlier Division Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P. No. 11028 of 2025 and batch (M/s SJ Constructions).

According to that judgment, the Court had already held that a single show cause notice or a single composite assessment order cannot be issued for more than one tax period. Once the due date for filing the annual return has expired, each financial year constitutes a separate assessment period requiring independent proceedings. 

The Bench observed that although several grounds had been raised against the assessment order, the petitioner chose to press only the principal legal issue concerning the validity of the composite assessment order.

The Court noted that the earlier Division Bench judgment squarely covered the controversy. Since the impugned assessment order clubbed together multiple financial years into one proceeding, it could not be sustained under Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act. 

The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the assessment order dated 28 March 2026; granted liberty to the GST authorities to initiate fresh proceedings separately for each assessment year; and left all other legal grounds raised by the petitioner open for consideration in future proceedings. 

The Court clarified that the period between the passing of the impugned assessment order and the receipt of the High Court’s order shall be excluded while computing the limitation period for initiating fresh proceedings.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

Read More: Whether GST Appeal Limitation Begins from Actual Communication of Order? Supreme Court Issues Notice [READ ORDER]

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

GSTAT Dismisses Dept. Appeal Over Rs. 7.35 Lakh Interest Demand as Below Rs. 20 Lakh Monetary Limit

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Ernakulam Bench, has dismissed a Revenue...

GST Refund Can’t Be Denied by Questioning ITC Eligibility Without S. 73 or 74 Proceedings: GSTAT

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Ernakulam Bench, has held that a...

Education Provider Need Not Be University to Claim Service Tax Exemption for Recognised Degree Courses: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has held that...

Subsequent Deposit of Full 10% Meets Mandatory Pre-Deposit Requirement: CESTAT

The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)...

More like this

GSTAT Dismisses Dept. Appeal Over Rs. 7.35 Lakh Interest Demand as Below Rs. 20 Lakh Monetary Limit

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Ernakulam Bench, has dismissed a Revenue...

GST Refund Can’t Be Denied by Questioning ITC Eligibility Without S. 73 or 74 Proceedings: GSTAT

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Ernakulam Bench, has held that a...

Education Provider Need Not Be University to Claim Service Tax Exemption for Recognised Degree Courses: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has held that...