BharatTaxGST

Kesm INDIA LLP vs. Deputy Commissioner (St)

Original PDF →
WP/409/2026HC Andhra PradeshGSTCNR APHC01000388202606 January 2026Bench: R RAGHUNANDAN RAO,T.C.D.SEKHAR5 pages
For Petitioner: L CHANDRA OBUL REDDYFor Respondent: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
APHC010003882026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 409/2026 Between: 1. KESM INDIA LLP, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MUPPALA SAI AKHIL VARMA, S/O MUPPALA JANARDHAN, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 1-14, GORANTIA MANDAL, STRATEGIC ELECTRONICS AEROSPACE DEFENSE, PALASAMUDRAM VILLAGE, ERSTWHILE ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT PRESENTLY SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT - 515241 ...PETITIONER AND 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ST, SPECIAL CIRCLE, OFFICE OF JOINT COMMISSIONER, ANANTHAPURAMU DIVISION, ANANTHAPUR- - 515 001. 2. 2. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, TIRUPATI - 517 501 3. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST, HINDUPUR CIRCLE, ANANTHAPURAM DIVISION, HINDUPUR-515 201 4. 4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 503 5. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, FINANCE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110001 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 a Writ of Mandamus of any other appropriate Writ or direction declaring the Assessment Order under Section 74 in Form DRC- 07 dated 27.03.2025 passed by the 1ST Respondent for the period from 2019-20 to 2023-24 as being illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, without jurisdiction, vitiated by procedural irregularity in clubbing the adjudication for 5 years in one proceeding, in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and 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 grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned Assessment Order under Section 74 in Form DRC-07 dated 27.03.2025 passed by the 1STRespondent for the period from 2019-20 to 2023-24 under Section 74, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. L CHANDRA OBUL REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 3

The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes appearing for the respondents.

2.

The petitioner is a registered firm, which has been served with an order of assessment, dated 27.03.2025, in FORM GST DRC-07, passed by the 1st respondent. This order of assessment covers the period from 2019-2020 to 2023-2024 (upto 03/2024).

3.

The petitioner, after having raised various grounds of challenge, has sought a direction, on the ground that, a single assessment order passed, 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 order of assessment/appeal.

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.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned assessment order, dated 27.03.2025, leaving it open to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings, for each assessment year separately.

4

6.

Needless to say, 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. 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 07.01.2026 KA

5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

WRIT PETITION NO: 409/2026

Date 07.01.2026 KA

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.