Judgment
APHC010040792024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 2302/2024 Between:
1. AIL DIXON TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY SHRI. VIBHOR GUPTA, SHED NO. 01 AND 03, ELECTRONIC MANUFACTURING CLUSTER-II
VIKRUTHAMALA VILLAGE, YERPEDU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517526.
...PETITIONER AND 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, SRIKALAHASTI CIRCLE (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PUTTUR CIRCLE), 249/14/B, BESIDE R.T.C BUS STAND, PUTTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517583 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, CHITTOORDIVISION, BESIDE DEVI THEATRE, KATTAMANCHI, TIRUPATI ROAD, CHITTOOR, PINCODE - 517001.
3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
A.P.
SECRETARIAT, VELEGAPUDI.
4. UNION OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (REVENUE), NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. ..
...RESPONDENT(S):
2 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.2302 of 2024
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 writ, direction or order quashing the proceedings of the 1st Respondent in Orders issued vide Ref No. ZD371123006586J, ZD371123006581T, ZD371123006573Q dated 14.11.2023 for the period July 2017 to March 2020 determining the value of supply for the supplies made by the Petitioner to its related party. M/s. Aditya InfoTech Limited in terms of Rule 30 of the COST Rules, 2017 by ignoring the second proviso to Rule 28 of the COST Rules, 2017 when full input tax credit is available to the recipient, (Annexure P-i) and without proper appreciation of the grounds filed by the petitioner in the reply to the Show Cause Notice vide letter dated 30.09.2023 (Annexure P-2) being arbitrary, without jurisdiction, unconstitutional, unreasonable and against the principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the GST Act, 2017 and the rules made thereunder. B. The Honble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order holding that denial of input tax credit to the petitioner is arbitrary, without jurisdiction, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice. C. And to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 stay the operation of the Orders issued vide Ref. No.
ZD371123006586J,
ZD371123006581T, ZD371123006573Q dated 14.11.2023 for the period July 2017 to March 2020 determining the value of supply for the supplies made by the Petitioner to its related party. M/s. Aditya InfoTech Limited in terms of Rule 30 of the COST Rules, 2017 by ignoring the second proviso to Rule 28 of the COST Rules, 2017 when full input tax credit is available to the recipient, in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. ANIL KUMAR BEZAWADA Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX (AP) 2. Y V ANIL KUMAR (Central Government Counsel) 3.
3 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.2302 of 2024
The Court made the following Order:
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Heard Sri Anil Kumar Bezawada, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes appearing for the respondents.
2.
The petitioner is a registered Company, which has been served with an order of assessment, dated 14.11.2023 passed by the 1st respondent.
This order of assessment covers the period from July 2017 to March 2020.
3.
The petitioner, after having raised various grounds of challenge, has pressed the ground that, a single order of assessment, issued for more than one financial year, would be violative of the provisions of Section 73 and Section 74 of the GST Act, 2017, and consequently, set aside the impugned order of assessment.
4.
A Division Bench of this Court, in W.P.No.11028 of 2025 & batch, after considering the said question, had held 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.
The petitioner has raised various grounds of challenge. However, the petitioner is pressing the primary ground of the order of assessment being a composite order of assessment. In that view of the matter, the present Writ
4 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.2302 of 2024
Petition is being disposed of, on this ground of challenge, leaving open the other grounds of challenge.
6.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned order of assessment, dated 14.11.2023 and remand back to the respondents, leaving it open to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings, for each assessment year separately. All issues are left open to be adjudicated before the Assessing Authority.
7.
Needless to say, the period from the date of issuance of the impugned order of assessment till the date of receipt of this order shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J
Date:17.06.2026
MJA
5 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.2302 of 2024
138
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 2302/2024 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Date:17.06.2026 MJA