WP/26086/2024 of UNITED ALFA STONES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER on 28 July 2026

1. M/s.UNITED ALFA NO.227, LA, FIRST F RING ROAD, BELLAN BY ITS MANAGING D

1. ASSISTANT COMMIS COMMISSIONER (S CHITTOOR.

2. JOINT COMMISSION O/O. CHIEF COMMIS ADJACENT 2, NH-16, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A

3. STATE OF ANDHRA CHIEF SECRETARY SECRETARIAT, VEL DISTRICT.

Counsel for the Petitioner

1. Mr.S.SURI BABU Counsel for the Responde

1. GP FOR COMMERCIA

N WP HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) DAY, THE 29th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT E SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR PETITION No: 26086 of 2024 STONES PRIVATE LIMITED, ALFA FLOOR, GREENGLEN LAYOUT, OF NDUR, BANGLORE - 560 103, REPR DIRECTOR, MR.FAISAL SHAREEF ...PE AND SSIONER, PALAMANERU CIRCLE, O ST), CHITTOR DIVISION, KATTA ER ST, LTU-II, CENTRAL INTELLIGEN SSIONER OF STATE TAX, DOOR NO. , SERVICE ROAD, KUNCHANAPALLY ANDHRA PRADESH. A PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS Y,

REVENUE (CT) DEPARTME LAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI MANDAL, ...RESPON r: ent(S): AL TAX

P_26086_2024

MANOR, FF.OUTER ESENTED TITIONER O/o.JOINT AMANCHI, CE WING, 12-468-4,

- 522 001, SPECIAL ENT, A.P. GUNTUR NDENT(S):

The Court made the following Order: (per NJS,J)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.A.V.Sai Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for respondents.

2. Petitioner, a Private Limited Company registered under Companies Act, 2013 (for short “the Act”) with GSTIN:37AACCU6577B1Z7, is engaged in the business of mining / quarrying and excavation of minerals, aggrieved by impugned Order dated 22.05.2024 passed by the 1st respondent, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner on various grounds.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the various averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, made submissions inter alia that the order of respondent No.1 covering tax period for the different Assessment Years i.e., 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 is not sustainable, in the light of the decision rendered by this Court in S J Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner & ors. (W.P No.11028 of 2025) dated 17.09.2025., and seeks to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order.

4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader, while refuting the said contentions sought to sustain the impugned order. His submission is that the petitioner instead of availing the remedy of appeal had straightaway filed the present writ petition and the same is not maintainable. However, he has not disputed the decision rendered by this Court in S J Constructions (referred to supra).

5. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused material on record.

6. Though several contentions were raised in the writ petition, this Court feels it not necessary to examine the same in detail. Suffice to state that impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that the same is a composite order covering the tax periods from December, 2020 to March, 2023.

7. In W.P No.11028 of 2025 & batch, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.09.2025 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 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.”

8. In the light of the above cited decision and for reasons alike, the impugned order is set aside. Writ Petition is allowed, as indicated above.

9. Needless to observe that respondent No.1 is at liberty to pass separate orders in respect of relevant tax periods and proceed with the assessments in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to the petitioner.

10. Further, 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. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

_____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Date:29.07.2026 BLV

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

W.P.No.26086 of 2024 Dt: 29.07.2026

BLV