Andhra Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Composite GST Order Covering Multiple Assessment Years: Bindu Recepies Private Limited Vs Union of India and Others

Background and Overview

The Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati, in the matter of Bindu Recepies Private Limited Vs Union of India and Others, allowed a writ petition challenging an Order in Original dated 30.03.2026 passed by the Revenue authorities. The petitioner — a GST-registered manufacturing entity engaged in the production and supply of bakery and confectionery products bearing GSTIN: 37AAECB5549G2ZJ — successfully assailed the impugned order primarily on the ground that it was a composite order spanning multiple tax periods, namely Assessment Years 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22.

This ruling reinforces an important procedural principle under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017: that assessment authorities cannot bundle multiple tax periods into a single show cause notice or a single composite assessment order.

At the heart of this dispute lay a procedural challenge — not a challenge to the substantive tax liability itself. The petitioner's primary grievance was that the impugned order unlawfully consolidated three separate assessment years into one composite order. The argument was grounded in the earlier coordinate Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in S J Constructions Vs Assistant Commissioner And Others, W.P. No.11028 of 2025, dated 17.09.2025, which had authoritatively interpreted Section 73 and Section 74 of the GST law on this precise question.

The Revenue, through the learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, opposed the writ petition on the ground that the assessee had bypassed the statutory appellate remedy and directly invoked writ jurisdiction, rendering the petition non-maintainable. Notably, however, the Standing Counsel did not dispute the correctness of the decision in S J Constructions, which ultimately proved decisive.

Relevant Statutory Framework

Section 73 and Section 74 — Demand and Recovery Provisions

Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 governs the determination of tax not paid, short-paid, or erroneously refunded — in cases not involving fraud, suppression, or wilful misstatement. Section 74 addresses the same category of demands but in cases involving fraud or deliberate suppression.

A critical aspect of both provisions relates to the tax period for which demand proceedings can be initiated. The coordinate Bench in S J Constructions had closely examined the legislative text of both sections, specifically:

  • Section 73(3) — which employs the expression "such tax period"
  • Section 74(3) — which is, in the words of the coordinate Bench, "in pari materia with Section 73(3)"
  • Section 74(4) — which, unlike Section 73(3), does not contain the term "such tax period"