Disposed¶43

M/s. Vatech Wabag Limited v. The Union of India

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Jul 2026WP/19161/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vatech Wabag Limited; Union of India; CGST Act; Section 74 CGST Act; Section 73 CGST Act; composite show cause notice; clubbing multiple financial years; FORM GST DRC-01; multiple tax periods 2020-21 to 2023-24; extended limitation; fraud wilful misstatement suppression; S.J. Constructions W.P No.11028 of 2025; Tirupati CGST Commissionerate; writ of mandamus; Article 226; limitation exclusion.

What did the court decide?

Impugned show cause notice dated 19.06.2026 set aside; 2nd respondent permitted to issue separate notices for each assessment year and proceed after due opportunity to the petitioner; period from date of impugned order till receipt of this order excluded for limitation; no order as to costs. ¶43

M/s. Vatech Wabag Limited Vs The Union of India — GST and Indirect Tax | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether a single show cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act covering multiple tax periods (2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24) is legally permissible under the CGST Act. +1 more

¶33

Court's answer

The impugned composite show cause notice dated 19.06.2026, covering multiple tax periods, is set aside in view of the factual and legal position.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

The 2nd respondent is at liberty to issue separate notices for each assessment year and proceed with the assessments for the tax periods in question after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, in accordance with law.

¶40

Key takeaways

The period from the date of the impugned order till the date of receipt of this order shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition disposed of at admission stage with consent: A composite FORM GST DRC-01 show cause notice dated 19.06.2026 (No. ZD370626024869S, Case ID AD3706260073163) issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act by the 2nd respondent (Superintendent of Central Tax, Tirupati CGST Commissionerate), covering tax periods 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 in one notice, was set aside. The Court relied on a Co-ordinate Bench decision in S.J. Constructions v. The Assistant Commissioner & Others (W.P No.11028 of 2025 & batch, dt. 17.09.2025), which held that a single show cause notice or composite assessment order cannot issue for more than one tax period/month before the annual return due date, or more than one year thereafter. Learned Standing Counsel did not dispute the legal or factual position. The respondent was granted liberty to issue separate notices for each assessment year and proceed after due opportunity; the period from the impugned order till receipt of this order was excluded for limitation; no costs.

¶1

APHC010358542026

¶2

[3543]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 15^th DAY OF JULY 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 19161/2026

¶10

Between:

¶11

M/S. VATECH WABAG LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, HAVING GSTIN 37AABCV0225G1ZO, AND HAVING BUSINESS, AT NO 3/989-1 YMR COLONY, PRODDATUR, YSR KADAPA, ANDHRA PRADESH 516 360 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT WABAG HOUSE, NO 17 200, FT RADIAL ROAD, THORAIPAKKAM- PALLAVARAM RADIAL ROAD, CHENNAI 600 117. REP BY ITS CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER MR. SKANDAPRASAD SEETHARAMAN

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110001.

¶15

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAXTIRUPATI, TIRUPATI CGST COMMISSIONERATE 9/86-AAMARAVATHI NAGAR, WEST CHURCH COMPOUND TIRUPATI-517 502.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAXTIRUPATI, TIRUPATI CGST COMMISSIONERATE 9/86-AAMARAVATHI NAGAR, WEST CHURCH COMPOUND TIRUPATI-517 502.

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be

¶19

¶20

pleased topleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order direction. The Petitioner is constrained to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned Show Cause or Notice bearing No. ZD370626024869S dated 19.06.2026 (Case ID AD3706260073163) issued by Respondent No. 1 purportedly under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The impugned Show Cause Notice has been issued by impermissibly clubbing multiple financial years, including Financial Year 2020-21, and by invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 74 in the complete absence of any specific allegation or material establishing fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with an intent to evade payment of tax. The invocation of Section 74 is merely a colourable exercise of power intended to circumvent the statutory limitation prescribed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, since the normal period for issuance of notice for Financial Year 2020-21 had already expired, further it has been held that clubbing multiple financial years in a single Show Cause Notice is legally impermissible, each financial year constituting a separate and independent assessment period. Consequently, the impugned Show Cause Notice is wholly without jurisdiction, arbitrary, contrary to the statutory scheme of the CGST Act,

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.YASWANTH GADE

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

¶29

WRIT PETITION No: 19161 of 2026

¶30

ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya)

¶31

Heard Mr. K. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Santhi Chandra, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶32

Petitioner a registered firm, is served with FORM GST DRC-01 in the form of Show-Cause-Notice dated 19.06.2026 under Section 74 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act (in short „CGST Act‟). Aggrieved by the Said Notice dated 19.06.2026 issued by the 2^nd respondent, the present writ petition is filed.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to various averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, inter alia contends that the impugned notice of the 2^nd respondent for the tax period 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 covering multiple tax periods is impermissible in Law under the provisions of CGST Act. He also placed reliance on the decision of

¶34

a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.J. Constructions v. The Assistant Commissioner & Others (W.P No.11028 of 2025 & batch), dated 17.09.2025, wherein, it was held as follows:

¶35

“17. Section 74(3) is in parimateria with Section 73(3). However, sub- section (4) of Section 74 does not contain the term “such tax

¶36

¶37

period”. This non mention would not, in our opinion, make any difference to the aforesaid interpretation. Apart from this, there are certain other provisions, which would also have to be considered. Any interpretation of an Act should not result in some of the other provisions becoming otiose or reduced in scope. As rightly pointed out by the Hon‟ble High Court at Madras, the right of a registered person to obtain benefit under Section 128 of APGST Act as well as the right to invoke the remedy of appeal against the orders of assessment either under Section 73 or under Section 74 would get impacted if a common order is permitted to be issued in relation to more than one assessment / financial year.

¶38

In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that a single show cause notice or a single composite assessment order cannot be passed in relation to more than one tax period of either a month if the assessment is taken up before the due date for filing of the annual return or for more than one year if the due date for filing of annual return has been reached.”

¶39

Learned Standing Counsel has not disputed the legal position, much less the factual aspects with regard to issuance of composite notice impugned in the writ petition.

¶40

In view of the factual and legal position, the impugned notice dated 19.06.2026 is set aside. However, the 2^nd respondent is at liberty to issue separate notices for each assessment year and proceed with the assessments in respect of tax periods in question, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, in accordance with Law.

¶41

Further, the period from the date of passing of the impugned order till the date of receipt of this order shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation.

¶42

¶43