Judgment
Date of reserved for orders :
Date of pronouncement :02.07.2026 Date of uploading :
APHC010314712026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3543] THURSDAY, THE 2nd DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 17172/2026 Between:
1. M/S VIJAYA DURGA ENTERPRISES, REPRESENTED BY THE PROPRIETRIX SMT. ALIVELU THOMMANDRU, DOOR NO.11-24-94, BHAVANNARAYANA STREET, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH PIN 520001.
...PETITIONER AND 1. ASSISTANT CONJMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, PARK ROAD CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA-1 DIVISION, D.NO 74-14- 2E, 4TH FLOOR, KRISHNA NAGAR YANAMALAKUDURU ROAD, KRISHNA, ANDHRA PRADESH-520007 2. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF A.P. REVENUE (CT) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, M ANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR (DISTRICT), A.P, PIN - 522 503
2
...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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, setting aside the impugned claimed composite show-cause Notice dated 18-09-2025 and its 2 claimed summariesdrom dsc drc dated 18-09-2025 the 3 claimed personal hearing Notices and the claimed composite assessment orders dated 12-11-2025 and its 2 claimed summaries in Foim GST DRC-07 dated 12-11- 2025 issued by the Respondent No1 and to pass such 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 stay the collection of the disputed tax of Rs. 6,25,140, the penalty of Rs.62,514, the late fees of Rs.1150 and the interest of Rs.3,95,112 (Total Rs.10,83,916) levied by the Respondent No:
1, for the various reasons mentioned in detail herein above; and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. J.N VENKATA SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following:
3
ORDER:- (per Justice Ninala Jayasurya)
The petitioner, a proprietary concern, was registered under the VAT regime and subsequently migrated to the GST regime with effect from 01.07.2017. It was allotted GSTIN No.
37AESPT5590E1ZS, but cancelled suo motu on 20.12.2024 with effect from 30.04.2024. Prior to that, it had filed the returns and paid the taxes due for the tax periods from April, 2021 to March, 2023.
2.
Challenging the composite show cause notice dated 18.09.2025 and the composite assessment order dated 12.11.2025, petitioner filed the present writ petition on various grounds.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter-alia, contends that, apart from the merits of the case, the impugned notice as well as the composite assessment order are unsustainable and liable to be set aside in view of the settled legal position. In this regard, he relies upon the decision of this Court in S.J. Constructions v.
Assistant Commissioner and others, (in W.P. Nos. 11028, 11206, 17671 & 20792 of 2025, dated 07.09.2025).
4
4.
In the said decision, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, relying upon the decisions of the High Court of Madras and other High Courts, set aside the composite notice and the composite assessment orders and, consequently, allowed the writ petitions.
The relevant portion of the order reads 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 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.”
5
5.
In the light of the aforementioned decisions, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
6.
Though Mr. Mannam Venkat Krishna Rao, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, sought to distinguish the decision rendered in S.J. Constructions v. Assistant Commissioner and others, by contending that the averments in the writ petition regarding non-service of notices cannot be accepted in the light of the provisions of Section 169 of the GST Act, in view of the settled legal position regarding the issuance of composite notices and composite assessment orders, this Court is not inclined to examine the said contention, and the same may be considered in an appropriate case.
7.
In the aforesaid view of the matter, the impugned notice dated 18.09.2025 and the consequential composite assessment order dated 12.11.2025 are set aside. However, the proper officer is at liberty to issue separate notices and proceed with the assessment proceedings in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. It is needless to state that the period from the date of issuance of the impugned assessment order till
6
the date of receipt of this order shall stand excluded for the purpose of limitation.
8.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
_____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Date:02.07.2026 LSP
Whether the order is :
Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No
7
140
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 17172/2026
Date:02.07.2026 LSP