Judgment
APHC010384382026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3543] TUESDAY, THE 28th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 20702/2026 Between:
1. M/S EAST COAST CORPORATION, A PROPRIETARY CONCERN (SHIP CHANDLERS / LASHING AND DUNNAGE CONTRACTORS), HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT 1ST FLOOR, DEEPANJALI COMPLEX, YELLAMATHOTA,
VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH - 530020, AND ITS REGISTERED PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT 26-8-119, R R M R ROAD, POORNA MARKET, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH - 530001.
GSTIN 37AANPA8136C1ZW. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI VARAHALA RAO ANNAMAREDDY.
...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (COMMERCIAL TAXES) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI.-522238 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ST, SPECIAL CIRCLE-VSP1, VISAKHAPATNAM 1 DIVISION
VISAKHAPATNAM,ANDHRA PRADESH.-530040 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST, KURUPAM MARKET CIRCLE, VISAKHAPATNAM 1 DIVISION
VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH.-530001 4. THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST2, ATCHUTHAPURAM CIRCLE, VISAKHAPATNAM 2 DIVISION
NJS,J & TCDS,J W.P No.20702 of 2026 2
VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH.-531011 5. THE JOINT SUBREGISTRAR29, -531001 LANKELAPALEM,ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT,ANDHRA PRASAD
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. JYOTHI RATNA ANUMOLU Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 2. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS
NJS,J & TCDS,J W.P No.20702 of 2026 3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Writ Petition No:20702 of 2026 The Court made the following Order: (per Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.A.V.Sai Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Tax representing respondent Nos.1 to 4.
2.
With the consent of learned counsel on both sides, writ petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission.
3.
The petitioner was served with order of assessment for the month of July-2023. The Assessment Order had been passed under Section 62 of the GST Act on the ground that the petitioner had not been filing its returns.
4.
Petitioner has approached this Court with the contention that the respondents are seeking to recover the amount demanded under the said order of assessment despite the fact that the petitioner had filed its returns, in Form GSTR 3B for the relevant period along with late fee. It is contended that no tax or interest was payable as the returns related to exempted turnovers.
5.
The details of the date of demand order, date of filing of returns etc., are set out in the table below:
Month Date of impugned Demand Order Date of filing of Form GSTR 3B CGST late fee u/s 62(2) SGST Late fees u/s.
62(2) July-2023 16.09.2023 22.02.2024 4650.00 4650.00
4650.00 4650.00 6.
Section 62(2) of the GST Act stipulates that any order passed under Section 62, would be deemed to have been withdrawn once necessary returns are filed within the period stipulated under the said provision. In the event of
NJS,J & TCDS,J W.P No.20702 of 2026 4
delay, late fee is required to be paid by the registered person who seeks to file the said returns.
7.
In the present case, petitioner is said to have paid the necessary late fee. In such circumstances, it would have to be deemed that the orders, detailed above, passed under Section 62 of the GST Act are deemed to have been withdrawn.
8.
Further, similar issue has fallen for consideration before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench) in Writ Petition (MD) No.18740 of 2024 and after considering the same, the High Court of Madras had held that in view of the amendment to Section 62(2) of the Act, it would be appropriate to condone the delay in filing GSTR 3-B returns and consequently the Assessment Order would have to be deemed to be withdrawn.
9.
Further, this Court following the judgment rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Madras, allowed W.P.No.20705 of 2025 filed by M/s. Brothers Engineering and Errectors Limited Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. In such circumstances, the benefit under Section 62(2) of the Act has to be extended to the petitioner as well.
10.
Accordingly, Writ Petition is allowed. Assessment Order under challenge passed under Section 62 of the Act is deemed to have been withdrawn and no steps for recovery can be initiated or continued for recovery of the taxes and dues raised under the said order of assessment. In view of withdrawal of above assessment proceedings, all the attachments shall also stand withdrawn. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
_____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Date:28.07.2026 Ksj