Krishna Microns vs. The State Of Ap

Held

The Court held that the issue in the present Writ Appeal and the batch of Writ Petitions is squarely covered by a common order previously passed by the same Bench on 26.06.2025 in W.P.No.29672 of 2023 and batch. Consequently, for the reasons recorded in that prior order, the Court disposed of the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petitions in terms thereof. The reasoning is based on the principle of judicial precedent, where a decision on a similar issue by a coordinate bench is binding. The operative direction was to dispose of the current matters in line with the earlier judgment. No specific findings on individual issues or amounts in dispute were recorded in this judgment, as it relied entirely on the prior order. No costs were awarded. Any pending miscellaneous applications were closed.

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 in these appeals and petitions is stated to be 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. The judgment does not specify the tax periods, the specific orders or actions under challenge, the authorities that passed them, or the amounts in dispute. The procedural history leading to this appeal and the batch of writ petitions is also not detailed.

Key Issues

The primary issue before the Court was whether the present Writ Appeal and the batch of Writ Petitions were covered by a prior common order of the same Bench dated 26.06.2025 in W.P.No.29672 of 2023 and batch. The Court had to decide if the facts and legal questions presented in the current cases were identical or substantially similar to those decided in the earlier order. The petitioner's side, represented by C.K.R. Associates, would have argued that their case falls within the ambit of the prior ruling. The respondents, represented by the Learned Advocate General, would have either agreed or presented arguments to distinguish the current cases from the precedent. The judgment does not explicitly frame the questions of law or detail the specific arguments made by each side beyond stating that the issue is covered by the prior order.