Judgment
APHC010198902025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3543] WEDNESDAY, THE 15th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 10325/2025 Between:
1. M/S. OLYMPUS MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (ACCOUNTS AND TAXATION) MR. K.
LAKSHMIPATI RAO,
SURVEY NO.58/1, PATTA NO.215, PARADESIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM-531 163, ANDHRA PRADESH.
...PETITIONER AND 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM NORTH CGST DIVISION, VISAKHAPATNAM.
2. SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX, MADHURAWADA, VISAKHAPATNAM.
3. UNION OF INDIA, , REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, 3RD FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI-110 001.
...RESPONDENT(S):
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 topleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring that the invocation of Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 to the facts of the case are without jurisdiction and the adjudication is to be completed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 and consequently set-aside the Adjudicating Order dated 17.1.2025 passed by the 1st Respondent under the GST Act for the tax periods 2017-18 to 2020-
2
21 and proceedings in Form DRC-07 vide Ref.Nos.ZD3701250379746, ZD3701250379770, ZD3701250379861 and ZD370125037999U for the tax periods 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 respectively as being barred by limitation for the period upto March, 2020, devoid of any signature, in violation of Rule 142(1A), bad in Law for conducting bunched assessment and also contrary to record and without jurisdiction and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 grant interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the 1st Respondent for the tax periods 2017-18 to 2020- 21, pending disposal of the Writ Petition as otherwise the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. D NAGARAJA KUMARI The Court made the following:
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION No: 10325 of 2025
ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya)
Heard Mr. K. Chandra Obul Reddy, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.D. Nagaraja Kumari, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2. With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.
2.
Petitioner, a registered taxpayer engaged in automobile dealership is an assesse on the rolls of respondent No.1 with GSTIN No.37AAACO9626P1ZQ.
Aggrieved by the Adjudicating Order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the 1st respondent and consequent Show-Cause-Notices in Form DRC – 07 dated 24.01.2025 issued 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 Adjudicating order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the 1st respondent for the tax period 2017-18 to 2020-21 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 17.01.2025 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.
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
143 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION No. 10325 of 2025
Dt. 15.07.2026
GVK