M/S. Gsr Handlooms vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order issued in Form GST DRC-07 bearing Reference No. ZD3712250296781 dated 23.12.2025 along with the consequential detailed adjudication orders bearing reference No. DIN372312258288 dated 23.12.2025 for the Financial Year from 2019-20 to 2023-24, and bearing reference No. DIN3723122530812 dated 23.12.2025 for the Financial Year 2024-25 passed by the 1st Respondent under Section 74/74A of the CGST Act, 2017/APGST Act, 2017, whereby a total demand of Rs. 42,89,680/- has been raised towards tax, interest and penalty, as being illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the CGST/APGST Acts, 2017, and unsustainable in law b. Consequently, stay all further proceedings, including recovery and coercive steps, pursuant to the impugned Order issued in Form GST DRC-07 bearing Reference No. ZD3712250296781 dated 23.12.2025 along with the consequential detailed adjudication
orders bearing reference No. DIN372312258288 dated 23.12.2025 for the Financial Years 2019-20 to 2023-24, and bearing reference No. DIN3723122530812 dated 23.12.2025 for the Financial Year 2024- 25, including recovery of the amounts demanded thereunder, pending disposal of the present Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: K.RAGHAVENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following order:
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION No: 26316 OF 2026
ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Kalyan Chakravarthy, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for the respondents. With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.
Petitioner, a registered taxpayer is proprietary concern engaged in business of dealing in handloom sarees (woven fabrics of cotton, HSN 5208), is an assessee on the rolls of respondent No.1 with GSTIN No.37BLQPG0546R1ZE. Aggrieved by the impugned summary order dated 23.12.2025 passed by the 1st respondent, the present writ petition is filed.
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 dated 23.12.2025 passed by the 1st respondent for the tax period 2019-20 to 2023-24 & 2024-25 covering multiple tax periods is impermissible in Law under the provisions of Central Goods and Service Tax 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:
4
“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 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.
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.”
Learned Government Pleader has not disputed the legal position, much less the factual aspects with regard to passing of composite order impugned in the writ petition.
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
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned summary order dated 23.12.2025, leaving it open to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings, for each assessment year separately.
This order, however, shall be subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax, 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%.
In view of setting aside of impugned order, all consequential proceedings shall stand revoked.
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.
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
24 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION No. 26316 OF 2026
Dt. 17.09.2026
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.