BharatTaxGST

Karthikeya Enterprises vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)

Original PDF →
WP/26791/2026HC Andhra PradeshGSTCNR APHC01048878202618 September 2026Bench: NINALA JAYASURYA,T.C.D.SEKHAR6 pages
For Petitioner: G NARENDRA CHETTYFor Respondent: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
APHC010488782026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 26791 OF 2026 Between: 1. KARTHIKEYA ENTERPRISES, S. No. 252, Agraharam Post, Pileru Mandal, Annamaiah District, Andhra Pradesh-517214, Rep. by its Proprietor Mr. Sridhar Reddy Pullagurla. ...Petitioner AND 1. THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST, Special Circle, Kadapa Division, D.No 1/499, 1st Floor, Opp. YSR Guest House, Smith Road , Near Zilla Parishad, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh 516001. 2. The Additional Commissioner ST, Appellate Authority, Tirupati, Flat No. 101, Thunga Residency, Raniparanthaka Devi Marg, Korameenugunta, Renigunta Road, Tirupati, Tirupati District, Andhra Pradesh 517501. 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Revenue (CT) Department, A. P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary (Finance), Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi 110001. ...Respondents 2 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 Composite Assessment Order passed by the First Respondent vide DIN3717102394015, dated 13-10-2023, for the Assessment Years 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 under S. 74 of the GST Acts, 2017, as upheld by the First Respondent vide the impugned CTD Order No. DIN3721022617574, dated 21-02-2026, which was passed for 5 Assessment Years in a Single Order, which does not contain either a physical or a digital signature and is an unsigned order, which does not contain DIN, which was passed u/S. 74 even though the ingredients for invoking the same are not present, and which is not sustainable even on merits, as invalid, non-est, not an order in the eye of law', contrary to law, and illegal and consequently set aside both the Assessment Order of the First Respondent and the Appellate Order of the Second Respondent IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 grant stay of all further proceedings, including recovery of tax, interest and penalty, pursuant to the impugned Composite Assessment Order passed by the First Respondent vide DIN3717102394015, dated 13-10-2023, for the Assessment Years 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 under S. 74 of the GST Acts, 2017, as upheld by the First Respondent vide the impugned CTD Order No. DIN3721022617574, dated 21-02-2026, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: G NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

The Court made the following order:

3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

WRIT PETITION No: 26791 OF 2026

ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who appeared through online and Mr. R. Kalyan Chakravarthy, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3. With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

2.

Petitioner, a registered firm being aggrieved with the assessment order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the 1st respondent and subsequent appellate order dated 21.02.2026 passed by the 2nd respondent, filed the present writ petition.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to various averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, inter alia contends that the impugned order of the 1st respondent for the tax period 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 covering multiple tax periods, which was entertained in the appeal passed by the 2nd respondent, is impermissible in Law under the provisions of CGST Act. He also placed reliance on the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.J. Constructions v. The Assistant Commissioner & Others (W.P No.11028 of 2025 & batch), dated 17.09.2025, wherein, it was held as follows:

“17. Section 74(3) is in parimateria with Section 73(3). However, sub- section (4) of Section 74 does not contain the term “such tax

4

period”. This non mention would not, in our opinion, make any difference to the aforesaid interpretation. Apart from this, there are certain other provisions, which would also have to be considered. Any interpretation of an Act should not result in some of the other provisions becoming otiose or reduced in scope. As rightly pointed out by the Hon’ble High Court at Madras, the right of a registered person to obtain benefit under Section 128 of APGST Act as well as the right to invoke the remedy of appeal against the orders of assessment either under Section 73 or under Section 74 would get impacted if a common order is permitted to be issued in relation to more than one assessment / financial year.

18.

In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that a single show cause notice or a single composite assessment order cannot be passed in relation to more than one tax period of either a month if the assessment is taken up before the due date for filing of the annual return or for more than one year if the due date for filing of annual return has been reached.”

4.

Learned Government Pleader has not disputed the legal position, much less the factual aspects with regard to issuance of composite orders impugned in the writ petition. Be that as it may. As the original order itself is non est in law, the order in appeal is also not sustainable.

5.

The petitioner has raised various grounds of challenge. However, the petitioner is pressing the primary ground of the order being composite assessment order by placing reliance on the above cited decision and the principle is equally applicable to the case on hand. In that view of the matter, the present writ petition is being disposed of, on this ground of challenge, leaving open the other grounds of challenge.

5

6.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned orders dated 13.10.2023 and 21.02.2026, leaving it open to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings, for each assessment year separately.

7.

This order, however, shall be subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax, in addition to the deposit already made at the time of filing the appeal, within a period of six (06) weeks, from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Any payment made by the petitioner, after the impugned order, had been passed, shall be set off, for the purpose of calculating the aforesaid 10%.

8.

In view of setting aside of impugned order, all consequential proceedings shall stand revoked.

9.

Needless to say, the period from the date of passing of the impugned order till the date of receipt of this order shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation.

10.

There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J

_______________ T.C.D.SEKHAR, J

GVK

6

15 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

WRIT PETITION No. 26791 OF 2026

Dt. 19.09.2026

GVK

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.