BharatTaxGST

M/S. Shri Vannappa Boya vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax

Original PDF →
WP/14553/2024HC Andhra PradeshGSTCNR APHC01028755202407 October 2025Bench: R RAGHUNANDAN RAO,T.C.D.SEKHAR6 pages
For Petitioner: G NARENDRA CHETTYFor Respondent: D NAGARAJA KUMARI, Venkata Rama Rao Kota SC FOR APSPDCL, GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
1 APHC010287552024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 14553/2024 Between: 1. M/S. SHRI VANNAPPA BOYA,, H. NO. 3-92, BOMMANAHAL VILLAGE AND POST, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 515871, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI VANNAPPA BOYA. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, ANANTAPUR GST DIVISION, D. NO. 28-999, 1ST FLOOR, GST BHAVAN, BESIDE MONTESSORI SCHOOL, SANGAMESH NAGAR, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (CT) DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY (FINANCE), MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110001. 4. ANDHRA PRADESH SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED APSPDCL, ANANTAPURAM DIVISION, KALYANDURGAM CIRCLE, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE ELECTRICAL ENGINEER (E.E.E.). CAUSE TITLE AMENDED AS PER C.O.DT.26.03.2025 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 particularly in the nature of MANDAMUS declaring that the impugned Order- in- Original No. 09/2024 (GST) (AC), dated 18-04-2024, passed by the First Respondent for the Tax Periods 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 under S. 74 of the CGST and APSGST Acts, 2017, as without jurisdiction, partly barred by limitation, arbitrary, unjust, unsustainable and illegal and consequently set aside the same or in the alternative direct the Fourth respondent to pay the penalty and interest imposed on the Petitioner vide the said impugned order and 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings, including recovery of interest and penalty pursuant to the impugned Order-in-Original No. 09/2024 (GST) (AC), dated 18-04-2024, passed by the First Respondent for the Tax Periods 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 under S. 74 of the COST and APSGST Acts, 2017, 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 may be pleased to grant leave to the petitioner / respondent No.4 herein to file the counter affidavit in W.P.No. 14553 of 2024 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. D NAGARAJA KUMARI 2. Venkata Rama Rao Kota SC FOR APSPDCL 3. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

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

3

The petitioner herein was served with an order of assessment, dated 18.04.2024, in relation to the tax period 2018-2019 and 2021-2022. This order was challenged by the petitioner, by way of the present Writ Petition.

2.

The petitioner had raised various grounds in the Writ Petition. However, at the stage of hearing, Sri G. Narendra Chetty, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court, dated 17.09.2025, in W.P.No.11028 of 2025 and batch wherein this Court had taken the view that a single composite order cannot be passed for different tax periods.

3.

In the present case, a single composite order has been passed for different tax periods regarding from 2018-2019 and 2021-2022. 4. Smt. Naga Raja Kumari, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would contend that the writ petition filed by the petitioner requires to be dismissed on the ground that the contentions raised by the petitioner are not in accordance with law. She would submit that the invocation of Section 74 of the GST Act was proper, and the contention of the petitioner that such a provision could not be invoked as he had no intention of evading payment of tax cannot be accepted.

5.

We do not propose to go into these issues raised by the learned Standing Counsel inasmuch as the order, dated 18.04.2024, has to be set aside on the short ground that the said order is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act inasmuch as the said order has been passed in relation

4

to separate and distinct tax periods and such a course of action is not permissible.

6.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 18.04.2024, and the matters are remanded back to the assessing authority to pass fresh assessment orders in accordance with law. Needless to say, it would be open to the petitioner to raise all objections including the questions of limitation before the assessing authority. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO,J

_______________ T.C.D.SEKHAR,J

RJS

5

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

WRIT PETITION No: 14553 of 2024 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

Dt: 08.10.2025

RJS

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.