Allaka Mallikarjuna Rao vs. The State Of Ap

Held

The Court held that the issue in the present Writ Appeal and the batch of Writ 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. For the reasons recorded in that prior order, the Court disposed of the present Writ Appeal and the Writ Petitions in terms thereof. The ratio decidendi is that if a matter is identical to or covered by a previous judgment of the same Bench, it should be decided consistently with that precedent. The operative direction was to dispose of the Writ Appeal and Writ Petitions in terms of the order dated 26.06.2025. No costs were awarded. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also closed.

Facts

This matter concerns Writ Appeal No. 1148 of 2023 and a batch of Writ Petitions. The appellant in the Writ Appeal is M/s. Shri Girija Alloy & Power (I) Private Limited, represented by its authorized signatory. The respondents are the State of Andhra Pradesh and another authority. The judgment states that the issue in the present appeal and petitions is 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, the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petitions are disposed of in terms of that prior order. No specific details regarding the tax period, amount in dispute, or the specific order/action under challenge are provided in this excerpt, beyond the fact that they are covered by the aforementioned prior order.

Key Issues

The primary issue before the Court was whether the present Writ Appeal and the batch of Writ Petitions were covered by a previous common order passed by the same Bench in W.P.No.29672 of 2023 and batch, dated 26.06.2025. The Court had to decide if the facts and legal questions presented in the current cases were identical or sufficiently similar to those adjudicated in the earlier order. The petitioner's argument, implied by the Court's disposition, would likely be that their case falls within the ambit of the prior ruling. The respondents' argument is not explicitly recorded, but the Court's decision to follow the prior order suggests that either the respondents conceded or the Court found no reason to deviate from its earlier decision. The specific provisions of the GST Act or Rules, or the nature of the dispute (e.g., input tax credit, classification, demand), are not detailed in this judgment excerpt.