Judgment
APHC010192632026
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: 13030 OF 2026 Between:
1. MSR WOOD SUPPLIERS, rep. by its Proprietor, Mr. Maddi Ithihas, 4th Floor, 5-93, Old Town, Sivalayam Area, , Backside of Kanyaka Parameswari Temple, Macherla, Guntur-522 426.
...Petitioner AND 1. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, Guntur-522 001.
2. Union of India rep, by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, 3rd Floor, Jeevan Deep Building Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110 001.
3. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (CT-II) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District-522 237.
4. Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Visakhapatnam Zonal Unit, Door No.28-14-17 Suryabagh, Beside Melody Theatre, Visakhapatnam-530 020 (authority issuing SCN) ...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 topleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction setting aside the order dated 12.1.2026 passed by the 1st respondent under Section 74 of the GST Act for the period from January, 2022 to November, 2024 (2021-22 to 2024-25) as being illegal, contrary to the record, in violation of principles of natural justice for denial of the right of the cross-examination and in the teeth of the judgment of this Honble Court in the case of M/s. S.J.Constructions 2025(9) TMI 1215 for passing a consolidated order for multiple years 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 may be pleased to grant interim stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the impugned order dated 12.1.2026 for the years 2021-22 to 2024-25 pending disposal of the Writ Petition as otherwise the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship.
Counsel for the Petitioner: KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDY Counsel for the Respondents: D NAGARAJA KUMARI 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: 13030 of 2026
ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.D. Nagaraja Kumari, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 4. With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.
2.
Petitioner, a registered taxpayer engaged in the business of trading in various kinds of wood commodities, is an assesse on the rolls of respondent No.1 with GSTIN No.37ALXPI5068A1ZU. Aggrieved by the Adjudicating Order dated 12.01.2026 passed by the 1st 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 Adjudicating order dated 12.01.2026 passed by the 1st respondent for the tax period 2021-22 to 2024-25 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:
4
“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.
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 passing of composite order impugned in the writ petition.
5.
In view of the factual and legal position, the impugned Adjudicating order dated 12.01.2026 is set aside. However, the 1st respondent is at liberty to issue separate notices 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.
5
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.
7.
Needless to say that all the other contentions raised in the writ petition are left open for adjudication before the authorities concerned in the event the same are raised in reply after receipt of Show-Cause-Notices.
8.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, as indicated above.
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
27 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION No. 13030 of 2026
Dt. 23.07.2026
GVK