M/S Kokila Cold Storage vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

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. Following the aforesaid order and for the reasons recorded therein, the Court disposed of the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petitions in terms of that earlier order. The ratio decidendi is that matters that are identical or substantially similar to those already decided by a common order of the High Court should be disposed of in accordance with that order, thereby ensuring consistency and judicial efficiency. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal and petitions in terms of the prior order, with no costs awarded. No specific issues were left undecided as the matter was resolved by reference to a previous judgment.

Facts

The appellant, M/s. Shri Girija Alloy & Power (I) Private Limited, represented by its authorized signatory, filed a Writ Appeal (W.A.No.1148 of 2023) against the State of Andhra Pradesh and another. Numerous other Writ Petitions were also filed by various petitioners. The core issue in all these matters pertains to GST. The High Court noted that the issue in the present appeal and the petitions were 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 Court decided to dispose of the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petitions in terms of that earlier order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present Writ Appeal and the batch of Writ Petitions are covered by the common order passed by this Bench in W.P.No.29672 of 2023 and batch, dated 26.06.2025? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, M/s. Shri Girija Alloy & Power (I) Private Limited, and the petitioners in the connected Writ Petitions, implicitly argued that their matters should be decided in accordance with established legal principles and precedents, as evidenced by their filing of these petitions. Their primary contention, as understood from the court's order, is that their cases are indeed covered by the previous order of the Court. Revenue/State's contention: The respondents, State of Andhra Pradesh and another, did not present any specific arguments recorded in this judgment. The Court's decision was based on its own finding that the matter was covered by a prior order.