Judgment
APHC010419002026
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: 22886 & 22887/2026 Between:
M/s Medicaid ...PETITIONER AND The Additional Commissioner St Fac and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. CHATAKONDU L V S CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX
2 NJSJ & TCDS, J WP.Nos.22886 & 22887 of 2026
The Court made the following common order:
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya)
Both these writ petitions arise out of the same issue and relate to the same tax period, they are being disposed of by way of this common order.
2.
Petitioner, is registered under the provisions of the GST Act, 2017, is engaged in the business of Antibiotics – Penicillin and their derivatives. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order passed by the 2nd respondent vide Assessment and Adjudication Order in DRC-07 dated 30.07.2024, in a consolidated manner for the tax periods 2019-20 to 2023-24, without affixing any DIN, and the Appeal Rejection Orders passed by the 1st respondent dated 21.05.2025, for the tax period 2020- 21 and 2022-23, these writ petitions are filed on various grounds.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to various averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, made submissions inter alia that the order of respondent No.2 covering composite tax period for the different Assessment Years i.e., 2019-20 to 2023-24, is not sustainable, in the light of the decisions rendered by this Court in W.P No.11028 of 2025, and seeks to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders.
4.
On the other hand, Sri S.A.V.Sai Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submits that the petitioner has remedy of appeal
3 NJSJ & TCDS, J WP.Nos.22886 & 22887 of 2026
before the Appellate Tribunal and instead of filing an appeal, the present writ petition is filed and the same cannot be entertained.
5.
This Court has considered the submissions made and perused material on record.
6.
Admittedly, the 2nd respondent issued show-cause notice dated 26.06.2024. In reply thereto, the petitioner submitted explanation dated 20.07.2024. Without considering the said explanation, the 2nd respondent issued the Assessment and Adjudication Order in DRC-07 dated 30.07.2024. Non-consideration of the reply is fatal and assessment order is hit by violation of principles of natural justice.
7.
Further, the appellate authorities, in view of the statutory limitations, has not taken into consideration that the delay in filing appeal occurred due to reasons stated in para 15 of the affidavit. Be that as it may, the original order itself is not sustainable in law. Therefore, the Appeal Rejection Orders by the 1st respondent is also legally not tenable.
8.
In W.P No.11028 of 2025 & batch, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.09.2025 held as follows:
“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
4 NJSJ & TCDS, J WP.Nos.22886 & 22887 of 2026
otiose or reduced in scope. As rightly pointed 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.
18. 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.”
9.
Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of, setting aside the impugned orders. It is made clear that the proper officer is at liberty to issue separate notices in respect of relevant tax periods and proceed with assessment of returns in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to the petitioner. However, keeping in view the fact that the appellate order was passed more than a year ago, the petitioner shall deposit further 10% of the disputed tax in respect of present orders, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
10.
It is needless to say that the period from the date of impugned orders till the date of receipt of this order shall be excluded for the
5 NJSJ & TCDS, J WP.Nos.22886 & 22887 of 2026
purpose of limitation. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
_____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
Date:08.09.2026 DSB
6 NJSJ & TCDS, J WP.Nos.22886 & 22887 of 2026
105
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR
WP.Nos.22886 & 22887/2026 Dated 08.09.2026
U DSB