Natural justice is upheld when multiple opportunities to be heard are provided; consolidated orders across tax periods are permissible under CGST law without causing prejudice unless demonstrable harm occurs.

ORDER:

Aparesh Kumar Singh, CJ.

Learned counsel Sri C.V.Narasimham appears for the petitioner.

2. Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, appears for respondent No.1.

3. The writ petition is filed challenging the show cause notice dated 21.03.2025 and the order-in-original, dated 13.10.2025 covering tax periods 2018-19 to 2023-24, mainly on the following grounds: i) that no hearing was granted after the reply was filed by the petitioner which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice; ii) Rule 142(1A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Rules”) require issuance of mandatory notice in Form GST DRC-01A since the subject period covered pre-amended period of 2018-19 and 2019-20 which was not issued; and iii) a consolidated order for all the tax periods is not permissible.

4. On these grounds, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the reply to the show cause notice dated 22.09.2025 (Annexure P-4 at page No.127) and submitted that the petitioner has opted for personal hearing, but after the reply was filed no personal hearing was given to the petitioner. He has also referred to the order-in-original dated 13.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) and submitted that after the petitioner submitted a letter dated 10.09.2025, no personal hearing was given to the petitioner.

6. Show cause notice was issued on 21.03.2025 (Annexure P-2 at page No.78) and the last notice was issued on 10.09.2025, on which day the petitioner also filed the reply wherein it has requested for personal hearing.

7. Thereafter no opportunity was given to the petitioner.

8. The petitioner took some time to collect the data in order to file the reply. Though no formal extension of time was given to file the reply, the petitioner requested for a personal hearing vide its reply dated 10.09.2025, which was not considered.

9. He submits that the respondents have not issued Form GST DRC-01A notice as mandated by 142(1A) of the Rules. He refers to para 14.2 (page No.55) of the order-in-original and submits that the Additional Commissioner had extracted the amended version of the Rule. He did not refer to the pre-amended Rule. That aspect has been specifically addressed by this Court in M/s. New Morning Star Travels vs. the Deputy Commissioner , 2023 (10) TMI 1246 – APHC = 2023 (79) GSTL 430 (AP) and held that for the prior period the requirement is mandatory and it cannot be avoided. In support of his contention, he also relied on the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in M/s.DBL-Deco (JV) vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST), W.P.No.8160 of 2024, decided on 10.06.2024 He has submitted that each assessment year is separate. The law applicable would also be different. Almost all the High Courts have held that consolidated order is not permissible. Reliance is placed on the Division Bench decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in S.J.Constructions vs. the Assistant Commissioner , W.P.No.11028 of 2025 and batch, dated 17.09.2025.

10. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs has referred to the list of dates submitted by him and submits that the show cause notice was issued on 21.03.2025. The petitioner was required to submit reply within thirty days. He was also provided the opportunity of personal hearing on many occasions i.e., 25.05.2025, 08.07.2025, 10.07.2025, 23.07.2025, 23.07.2025 and 12.08.2025. Only on 10.09.2025 the petitioner filed his reply. As per