M/s.P.Venkataramaniah and Co., Vs Assistant Commissioner (St)

M/S.P.VENKATAR A MANIAH & Co., Door No.25-11- 5 19, MILITARY COLONY, 5^TH CROSS ROAD, VEDAYAPALEM , NELLORE DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI.SREEDHAR POTHUGUNTA.

¶13

...PETITIONER

¶14

AND

¶15

ASSISTANT COM M ISSIONER ST, NELLORE -II CIRCL E , NELLORE.

¶16

COMMISSIONER O F STATE TAX, O/o.THE CHIEF C O MMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, DOOR No.12-468-4, ADJACENT TO NH-16, SERVICE ROAD, K UNCHANAPALLY - 522501, GUNT U R DISTRICT.

¶17

ASSISTANT COM M ISSIONER ST, ONGOLE -II CIRCLE, ONGOLE.

¶18

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST FAC, NELLORE -III CIRCLE, NELLORE.

¶19

STATE OF ANDH R A PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY I T S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE CT-II DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, G U NTUR DISTRICT.

¶20

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

2

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.Mr.S SURI BABU

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

¶26

3

¶27

The Court made the following order:

¶28

Heard Mr.S.Suri Babu, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.Sai Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the respondents 1 to 4. With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶29

Petitioner, a Partnership Firm engaged in the business of Work Contract Services to various Departments of the Government is an assesse on the rolls of respondent No.1 with GSTIN No.37AACFP7143H1Z6. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the 4^th respondent, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner.

¶30

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 order passed by the 4^th respondent for the tax period 2018-2019 to 2021-2022 covering multiple tax periods is impermissible in Law under the provisions of Central Goods and Service Tax Act. He also placed reliance on the decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.J. Constructions v.

¶31

The Assistant Commissioner & Others (W.P No.11028 of 2025 & batch), dated 17.09.2025 wherein it was held as follows:

¶32

“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 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

¶33

4

¶34

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.

¶35

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.”

¶36

Learned Assistant Government Pleader has not disputed the legal position, much less the factual aspects with regard to passing of a composite order impugned in the writ petition.

¶37

In view of the factual and legal position, the impugned proceedings dated 31.08.2024 are set aside. However, the 4^th respondent is at liberty to issue separate notices and proceed with the assessments in respect of tax periods in question, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, in accordance with Law.

¶38

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.

¶39

5

¶40