Judgment
APHC010406852026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE 7th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 22389 OF 2026 Between:
1. G AMARNATHA REDDY, Works contractor - GSTIN-37ATJPA0685M1ZE Rep. by its Proprietor, Sri G. Amarnatha Reddy 2/257, NGOs colony, Nandyal-518 501 Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh ...Petitioner AND 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST, Nandyal -II circle, D.N0.25/3A 3B, MSR Complex, Opp APSRTC Bus Stand, Nandyal -518501 Kunrool (Nandyal) District, Andhra Pradesh. 2.
2. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government Revenue (CT-II) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi-522503 Amaravathi, Guntur District.
3. The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary (Finance) Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi 110001 ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toTo issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ or order or direction declaring the action of the 1ST Respondent in passing the assessment order
2
dated 3.5.2023 for the period 2019-20 to 2020-21 under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 as in gross violation of principles of natural justice in the absence of issuance of show cause notice, also passed as composite order for more than one assessment year and not issued the intimation in Form DRC-01A under Rule 142(1 A) of the COST Rules and also not signed the summary of assessment order and not affixed with the proper Document Identification Number on the assessment order, and consequently set aside the same and direct the 1ST Respondent to redo the assessment affording opportunity of being heard in accordance with law, IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the proceedings of the 1®* Respondent in Form DRC - 07 dated 3.5.2023 for the period 2019-20 to 2020-21 under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, in the interest of justic Counsel for the Petitioner: SRINIVASA RAO KUDUPUDI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following order:
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION No: 22389 OF 2026
ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R. Kalyan Chakravarthy, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2. With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.
2.
Petitioner, a registered firm under the provisions of GST Act, being aggrieved with the assessment order dated 03.05.2023 passed by the 1st respondent, filed the present writ petition.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to various averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, inter alia contends that the impugned order of the 1st respondent for the tax period 2019-20 and 2020-21 covering multiple tax periods is impermissible in Law under the provisions of CGST Act. He also placed reliance on the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.J. Constructions v. The Assistant Commissioner & Others (W.P No.11028 of 2025 & batch), dated 17.09.2025, wherein, it was 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.
4
Any interpretation of an Act should not result in some of the other provisions becoming 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.” 4.
Learned Government Pleader has not disputed the legal position, much less the factual aspects with regard to issuance of composite order impugned in the writ petition.
5.
In view of the factual and legal position, the impugned order dated 03.05.2023 is set aside. However, the 1st respondent is at liberty to issue separate orders for each assessment year and proceed with the assessments in respect of tax periods in question, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, in accordance with Law.
6.
Further, as seen from the impugned order dated 03.05.2023, the proper officer while recording the conclusions stated that notice of personal hearing was offered to the tax payer vide reference cited to attend the personal hearing on 13.03.2023. It is further stated that tax payer neither attended for
5
personal hearing nor filed any written objections along with documentary evidences. On contrary, a perusal of reference No.4 in the impugned order, is purported written objections dated 21.04.2023 of the tax payer and surprisingly reference No.5 is office notice of personal hearing dated 09.03.2023. This contradictory position clearly goes to indicate that assessment order has not been in compliance with the principles of natural justice. On this ground also, the writ petition is liable to be allowed.
7.
Though learned Government Pleader has pointed out that the order is of the year 2023 and in the event of interference with the same, a condition for pre-deposit of 30% of the disputed tax may be directed.
8.
In view of the conclusion arrived at by us that the order is violative of principles of natural justice, we are not inclined to impose any such condition.
9.
Needless to say that period from the date of passing of the impugned order till the date of receipt of this order shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation.
10.
In view of setting aside of impugned order, all consequential proceedings shall stand revoked.
6
11.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J
_______________ T.C.D.SEKHAR, J
GVK
7
126 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION No. 22389 OF 2026
Dt. 07.08.2026
GVK