Judgment
1
APHC010187002026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
WRIT PETITION NO: 10499 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:- 66 [3543]
M/s. Sri Nr Constructions ...Petitioner Vs.
The Assistant Commissionerstate Taxes and Others ...Respondent(s)
********** CORAM : SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR DATE : 1st September 2026 Present :
Advocate for Petitioner:
SRINIVASA RAO KUDUPUDI Advocate for Respondent:
GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX
2
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR
WP No.10499 OF 2026 ORDER:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice T.C.D. Sekhar) 1.
The petitioner is a registered person under the G.S.T.
regime has not filed his returns for the months of April and May, 2024. On account of the non-filing of the returns in GSTR-3B Forms, the best judgment assessment orders were passed for the month of April, 2024 on 14.06.2024 and for the month of May, 2024 on 19.07.2024.
2.
The petitioner, after passing these assessment orders, had filed GSTR-3B Forms and had also paid the necessary taxes, in relation to the periods in dispute on 21.09.2024 and 23.09.2024 respectively by paying interest (system calculated interest) and late fee as required under Section 62(2) of GST Act.
3.
Thereafter, the 1st respondent, had initiated proceedings for recovery of the dues mentioned under the assessment orders specified above. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition.
3
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G.S.T. Act’), contends that, the best judgment assessment orders, passed in the absence of returns, is deemed to be withdrawn once the dealer files the necessary Forms and pays the tax payable under the said returns within 60 days from the date of receipt of the Order and that, the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, 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the orders on the basis of which coercive steps are being taken for recovery of tax would have to be treated as withdrawn.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
4
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, these Writ Petition are allowed, declaring that the assessment order, dt.14.06.2024 for the period April, 2024 and assessment order dt.19.07.2024 for the period May, 2024 are deemed to have been withdrawn.
Further, consequential proceedings initiated to recovery the tax dues under the aforesaid orders are set aside.
There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
________________________
JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR 01.09.2026 DR
5
73 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR
WP No.10499 OF 2026 Date 01.09.2026
U DR