M/S. Jayaprabha Polymers vs. The Superintendent Of Central Tax - Andhra Pradesh High Court, 02 August 2026

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

APHC010386722026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 3rd DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 21503 OF 2026 Between: 1. M/s. Jayaprabha Polymers,, Rep. by its Proprietor Smt. I, Malineni Jayaprabha, W/o Late Malineni Srinivasa Rao, aged about 67 Survey No. 102, Plot No. C-1,APIIC, Industrial Estate, Pernamitta, Ongole, Prakasam, Andhra Pradesh - 523002. ...Petitioner AND 1. The Superintendent of Central Tax, Ongole COST Range, D.No.37-1-413, 3rd Floor, Roshan Plaza, 8th Lane, Ram Nagar, Ongole, Prakasam, Andhra Pradesh - 523 001. 2. The Superintendent of Central Tax, Central GST Audit Circle, Nellore, 2nd Floor, Aditi Crystal, Near Madras Bus Stand Nellore - 524 003. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Nellore CGST Division, GST Bhavan, Plot No.121, Road No.12, Magunta Layout, Nellore - 524 003. 4. Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.-110001 ...Respondents 2 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 toissue a Writ, Order or direction particularly one in the nature WRIT OF MANDAMUS a. To set aside the Composite Order-in-Original No. 23/2025-26-GST-SUPDT dated 03.12.2025, passed for the tax periods 2018- 19, 2019-20, 2021-22, and 2022-23, whereby tax, interest, and penalty have been demanded under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017. b. To condone the delay in filing the present Writ Petition, as the delay was neither wilful nor deliberate but occurred due to the untimely demise of my husband on 08.01.2026, for the reasons stated in this Affidavit 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 stay of recovery of demand pursuant to the Impugned Order-in-Original No. 23/2025-26-GST-SUPDT dated 03.12.2025 issued by Respondent No. 1, Counsel for the Petitioner: K.RAGHAVENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents:

The Court made the following order:

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

WRIT PETITION No: 21503 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.1 to 3. With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

Petitioner a registered firm, is served with composite Order-in-Original dated 03.12.2025 under Section 74 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act (in short „CGST Act‟). Aggrieved by the said order dated 03.12.2025 passed by the 1st respondent, the present writ petition is filed.

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 2018-19, 2019-20, 2021-22 and 2022-23 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.”

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.

In view of the factual and legal position, the impugned order dated 03.12.2025 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.

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.

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

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

WRIT PETITION No. 21503 of 2026

Dt. 03.08.2026

GVK