The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside a composite show cause notice in Form DRC-01 and the consequent composite order in Form DRC-07 covering four financial years (2021-22 to 2024-25), following its own Division Bench decision in SJ Constructions v. The Assistant Commissioner (WP No. 11028 of 2025, decided 17.09.2025) which had held that a single SCN or composite assessment order cannot be passed in relation to more than one tax period. The ruling by Justice Ninala Jayasurya and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar in WP No. 23506/2026 (Bluenine Infra Technologies Pvt. Ltd., decided 19.08.2026) took the notable additional step of directing the Department to submit data regarding officers who continue to pass composite orders despite the SJ Constructions decision, observing that such continued non-compliance facilitates unnecessary writ petitions and cannot be countenanced.
The court noted that while the Revenue attempted to argue that the writ petition was not maintainable on the ground of availability of the appeal remedy, the Government Pleader did not dispute the decision in SJ Constructions. The AP HC's SJ Constructions decision had agreed with the interpretation placed by the Madras HC on the interplay between Sections 73(3) and 74(3), holding that a composite order for multiple financial years impairs both the taxpayer's right to invoke Section 128 and the right to appeal. The court noted that an SLP (Civil) Diary No. 40652 of 2026 has been filed against SJ Constructions and notice has been issued, but that did not arrest the operation of its own Division Bench ruling.
Liberty was granted to the Department to issue separate year-wise notices and proceed afresh. The direction for the Department to submit data on composite orders passed after SJ Constructions signals the court's concern that its own binding precedent is not being followed by the field formations.
- 2026-juristway.com-2476-HC(Andhra Pradesh)-GST | High Court of Andhra Pradesh | WP No. 23506/2026 | 19.08.2026