Vijay Tv And Video Home vs. The Deputy Commissioner
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
APHC010029952026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Juri iction) [3529] WEDNE AY,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 2318/2026 Between:
VIJAY TV AND VIDEO HOME, SHOP NO. 15, REVENUE COMPLEX, ZINNAH TOWER CENTER, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522 001 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI. GANGADHARA RAO JAWADI, S/O. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS.
...PETITIONER AND 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GUNTUR CGST DIVISION D.NO. 3- 1-197/5, OPP LOCL PETROL BUNK, PATTABHIPURAM MAIN ROAD, GUNTUR-522 006 ANDHRA PRADESH.
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX, KOTHAPET EAST CGST RANGE, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH. -522201
UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI-110001. 4. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (CT) DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.522237
THE SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DGGI,ASHOK NAGAR, BANDAR ROAD VIJAYAWADA REGIONAL UNIT VIJAYAWADA. - 520007
...RESPONDENT(S):
2
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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the impugned adjudication order of the 1ST Respondent dated 23.10.2025 passed in Order in Original No. 27/2025-26-GST under section 74 of the COST Act without establishing the mens rea and suppression of facts as also passed in a composite manner for the tax periods April 2018 to March 2024 without establishing that the dealer has collected any amount towards the DBB, DS or DIS charges from its customers and collecting the amounts from the Petitioner in the form of DRC- 03s under coercion and added to that levy of interest, penalty @ 100PERCENT even after the payment much before issuance of show cause notice as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, unfair, without application of mind, without authority of law and juri iction and in the teeth of the order of this Hon'ble Court orders dated 17-09- 2025 in W.P. No. 11028/2025 AND batch and consequently to set aside the order passed by the 1ST Respondent and order the respondent to refund the tax collected under coercion 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 to stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order dated 23.10.2025 passed in Order in Original No. 27/2025-26-GST issued by the 1ST Respondent and grant such other relief or reliefs as are deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:
M V J K KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):
GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 2. 3
The Court made the following Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for the respondents.
The petitioner is a registered company, which has been served with an Order in Original No.27/2025-26-GST, dated 23.10.2025 by the 1st respondent. This Order in Original covers the period from April 2018 to March 2024. 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.
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.
The petitioner has raised various grounds of challenge. However, the petitioner is pressing the primary ground of the Order in Original being a composite order of assessment. The learned counsel for the petitioner would
4
also contend that the assessing authority is not considering the objections raised by the petitioner. 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.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned Order in Original, dated 23.10.2025 and remand back to the respondents, leaving it open to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings, for each assessment year separately. There shall be an additional direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass a reasoned order on the objections raised by the petitioner, while passing a fresh order of assessment. Needless to say, that 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 purpose 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: 04.02.2026 KA
5
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 2318/2026
Date: 04.02.2026 KA
6
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.