BharatTaxGST

Chebrolu Chenchaiah vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Original PDF →
WP/19537/2026HC Andhra PradeshGSTCNR APHC01035679202622 July 2026Bench: NINALA JAYASURYA,T.C.D.SEKHAR6 pages
For Petitioner: VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
APHC010356792026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 23rd DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 19537 OF 2026 Between: 1. CHEBROLU CHENCHAIAH, S/o Veeraiah Chebrolu, Aged about 49 years Occ Contractor, R/o Flat No 401 Yaganti Nice Apartment 3/6 Line, Vidyanagar, Sidhartha Road, Guntur ...Petitioner AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District - 522238. 2. The Commissioner of Tax Govt of Andhra Pradesh, Commercial Taxes Department, Vijayawada, NTR District - 522501. 3. The Assistant Commissioner State Tax, Brodipet Circle, Guntur-II Division, Commercial Taxes Department, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh - 522002. 4. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, 2nd Line, Brodipet, Guntur - 522002 ...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 2 pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings issued by the 3rd Respondent in FORM GST ASMT-15 dated 12.12.2025, purportedly under Section 63 of the CGST APGST Act, 2017, determining tax, interest and consequential liability against the petitioner under the earlier GSTIN bearing No. 37ADGPC3239G1ZT, and also the consequential recovery proceedings / notice issued in FORM GST DRC- 13 under Section 79(1)(c) of the CGST/APGST Act, 2017 to the 4th Respondent bank in respect of the petitioner's bank account bearing No. 2002757256 maintained with State Bank of India, Brodipet Branch, Guntur, and to quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, contrary to Sections 63, 75, 78 and 79 of the CGST/APGST Act, 2017, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents to release defreeze the petitioner's bank account and permit the petitioner to operate the same, and pass 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 pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned proceedings issued by the 3rd Respondent in FORM GST ASMT-15 dated 12.12.2025 and the consequential recovery proceedings / notice issued in FORM GST DRC-13 under Section 79(1)(c) of the CGST/APGST Act, 2017 to the 4th Respondent bank in respect of the petitioner's bank account bearing No.2002757256 maintained with State Bank of India, Brodipet Branch, Guntur and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA 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: 19537 of 2026

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

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.A.V. Sai Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3. With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

2.

Petitioner, a registered taxpayer is civil contractor engaged in small contract works, is an assesse on the rolls of respondent No.3 with GSTIN No.37ADGPC3239G1ZT. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 12.12.2025 passed by the 3rd 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 assessment order dated 12.12.2025 passed by the 3rd respondent for the tax period 2018-19 & 2022-23 covering multiple tax periods is impermissible in Law under the provisions of Central Goods and Service Tax 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

4

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. 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 Assistant Government Pleader has not disputed the legal position, much less the factual aspects with regard to passing of composite order impugned in the writ petition.

5.

The petitioner has raised various grounds of challenge. However, the petitioner is pressing the primary ground of the order being composite assessment order. In that view of the matter, the present Writ Petition is being disposed of, on this ground of challenge, leaving open the other grounds of challenge.

5

6.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned assessment order dated 12.12.2025, leaving it open to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings, for each assessment year separately.

7.

This order shall be subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax, within a period of three (03) weeks, from the date of receipt of this order. Any payment made by the petitioner, after the impugned order, had been passed, shall be set off, for the purpose of calculating the aforesaid 10%.

8.

Needless to say, 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.

9.

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

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

WRIT PETITION No. 19537 of 2026

Dt. 23.07.2026

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.