BharatTaxGST

M/S. Kanaka Reddy Seerapu vs. The Union Of INDIA

Original PDF →
WP/21576/2026HC Andhra PradeshGSTCNR APHC01039693202603 August 2026Bench: NINALA JAYASURYA,T.C.D.SEKHAR6 pages
For Petitioner: C SANJEEVA RAO

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
APHC010396932026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 4th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 21576 OF 2026 Between: 1. M/S. KANAKA REDDY SEERAPU, (GSTIN. 37DAFPS1893K1Z0), Proprietor. Kanaka Reddy Seerapu, S/o Seerapu Appa Rao, Aged about 61 years, Door No. 38-41-28, 104 Area Industrial Estate, Visakhapatnam- 530007, Andhra Pradesh ...Petitioner AND 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi - 110 001. 2. The Superintendent of Central Tax, Marripalem Central GST Range, Visakhapatnam Central GST Division, D.No. 45-57-21, 2nd Floor, Sriya Complex, Near Narasimhanagar, Rythu Bazaar, Kailasapuram, NH-5, Visakhapatnam - 530024. 3. The Commissioner of Central Tax, Visakhapatnam Central GST Commissionerate, Custom House, Port Area, Visakhapatnam - 530 035. 4. The Military Engineering Service MES, Represented by its Garrison Engineer, Defence Department, Central Government, Visakhapatnam- 530007, 2 ...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 toa) It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in passing the impugned composite order dated 03.02.2026/DIN.20260255YJ00004404D2 Order-in-Original No. VSP-GST- SUPDT-23/25-26(MNM) (Ex.P1) and consequentially raised a demand of tax - Rs.6,19,642/- and equivalent amount of penalty - Rs.6,19,642/- under section. 122(2)(b) read with section 74 of the CGST Act and an amount of Rs.6,19,642/- towards penalty under section 122(1)(xvii) of the CGST Act, sum total comes to Rs. 18,58,926/-, as illegal, arbitrary, high handed, without authority of law and jurisdiction, in violation of principles of natural justice, contrary to the provisions of the Act and quash/set aside the same 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 order and direct the Respondents to stay the operation of the impugned composite order dated 03.02.2026 of the disputed demand - Rs. 18,58,926/- vide DIN: 20260255YJ000044 04D2 in Order-in-Original No. VSP-GST- SUPDT-23/25-26(MNM) (ExP1), pending disposal of the Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: C SANJEEVA RAO Counsel for the Respondents:

The Court made the following order:

3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

WRIT PETITION No: 21576 OF 2026

ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Santhi Chandra, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department appearing for respondent Nos.2 & 3. With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

2.

Petitioner a registered firm, is served with composite order dated 03.02.2026 under Section 74 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act (in short „CGST Act‟). Aggrieved by the said order dated 03.02.2026 passed by the 2nd respondent, the present writ petition is filed.

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 2nd 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 4

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 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 Standing Counsel 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 03.02.2026 is set aside. However, the 2nd 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, the 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.

5

7.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, as indicated above.

8.

There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J

_______________ T.C.D.SEKHAR, J

GVK

6

17 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

WRIT PETITION No. 21576 OF 2026

Dt. 04.08.2026

GVK

Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.