3F Oil Palm PVT LTD vs. The State Of Ap

Held

The Court held that the issue in the present appeal and the petitions was squarely covered by a common order previously passed by the same Bench in W.P.No.29672 of 2023 and batch, dated 26.06.2025. Consequently, for the reasons recorded in that prior order, the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petitions were disposed of in terms thereof. The reasoning is that the present cases present the same legal questions and factual matrix as the earlier decided batch. The ratio decidendi is that where a High Court has already rendered a decision on a particular issue, subsequent cases with identical issues can be disposed of by following the precedent set by the earlier judgment, without re-examining the merits. The operative direction was to dispose of the Writ Appeal and Writ Petitions in terms of the previous order. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

This matter concerns Writ Appeal No. 1148 of 2023 and a batch of Writ Petitions, filed by M/s. Shri Girija Alloy & Power (I) Private Limited and other petitioners against the State of Andhra Pradesh and another respondent. The core issue presented before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati is identical to that decided in a previous common order by the same Bench in W.P.No.29672 of 2023 and batch, dated 26.06.2025. The judgment does not specify the tax periods, the specific order or action under challenge, the authority that passed it, or the amount in dispute. The procedural history is limited to the filing of the appeal and writ petitions.

Key Issues

The primary issue before the Court was whether the present Writ Appeal and Writ Petitions were covered by a common order previously passed by the same Bench. The Court had to decide if the facts and legal questions raised in this batch of cases were identical to those adjudicated in W.P.No.29672 of 2023 and batch. The petitioner's argument, implicitly, is that if the previous order is binding, then the present cases should be disposed of in terms of that order. The revenue or State's argument is not recorded in the judgment. No specific provisions of the CGST/SGST Act or Rules are explicitly mentioned as being the subject of argument, nor are any specific circulars or precedents named in relation to the arguments presented in this specific judgment.