Judgment
1 NJSJ & TCDS, J WP.No.24973 of 2026
APHC010458192026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3543] TUESDAY, THE 8th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 24973/2026 Between:
M/s. Bismillah Oils ...PETITIONER AND The Assistant Commissioner State Taxes and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SRINIVASA RAO KUDUPUDI Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX
2 NJSJ & TCDS, J WP.No.24973 of 2026
The Court made the following order:
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya)
The petitioner is a registered person under the CGST regime, has not filed his returns for the month of June, 2023. On account of the non- filing of the returns in GSTR-3B Forms, the 1st respondent issued order in Form ASMT-13, dated 16.10.2023 and summary order dated 17.10.2023, conducting the best judgment assessment for the period June, 2023.
2.
The petitioner, after passing of this assessment order, filed Form GSTR-3B and had also paid the necessary tax, in relation to the period in dispute on 16.02.2024, by paying late fee as required under Section 62(2) of the GST Act.
3.
Thereafter, the 1st respondent initiated proceedings for recovery of the dues mentioned under the assessment order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition.
4.
Sri Srinivasa Rao Kudupudi, learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon Section 62 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (herein referred to as ‘the G.S.T. Act’), contends that, the best judgment assessment order passed in the absence of returns, is deemed to be withdrawn once the dealer files the necessary Forms and pays the tax payable under the said returns within 60 days from the date of receipt of the Order and that, the proviso to Section 62(2) of the G.S.T. Act,
3 NJSJ & TCDS, J WP.No.24973 of 2026
extends this period by another 60 days, if late fee and additional late fee are paid. He would submit that, once the payments are made by the petitioner, the orders on the basis of which coercive steps are being taken for recovery of tax would have to be treated as withdrawn.
5.
On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for the respondents does not dispute the payment of late fee and interest made by the petitioner.
6.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench), in W.P.(MD) No.18740 of 2024, dated 02.08.2024, wherein a similar issue was considered. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras, after considering similar submissions, had held that in view of the amendment to the Act and the spirit of the amendment, it would be appropriate to condone the delay in the filing of the GSTR-3B returns and consequently, the assessment orders would have to be deemed to be withdrawn.
7.
Following the principles set out by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, the Writ Petition is allowed, declaring that the assessment order, dated 16.10.2023 for the period June, 2023, deemed to have been withdrawn. Further, consequential proceedings initiated to recover the tax dues under the aforesaid orders shall stand revoked. There shall be no
4 NJSJ & TCDS, J WP.No.24973 of 2026
order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
_____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
Dated:08.09.2026 DSB
5 NJSJ & TCDS, J WP.No.24973 of 2026
145
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR
WP No.24973 of 2026 Date 08.09.2026
U
DSB