WP/14916/2026 of m/s Al Raheem Promoters Private Limited, Vs . The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 6 July 2026

Order

bearing Demand ID ZD371225041155N dated 30.12.2025 under Section 74 of the CGST/APGST Act, 2017, and consequential demand notice dated 01-04-2026 bearing on 3701042691629 under Section 79 of the CGST/APGST Act, 2017, and Form GST DRC-13 dated 20.05.2026 bearing DIN 3720052654402 issued under Section 79(1 )(c) of the APGST Act, 2017, which is a single order passed for Multiple Assessment Years, which was passed pursuant to a single authorization for making inspection without any post- inspection authorization for making Assessment, which was passed by invoking S. 74 even though the ingredients for

Invoking the same are not available only for the purpose of availing the larger period of limitation under the said Provision as otherwise the Impugned order would be partly barred by limitation if passed u/S. 73, as without jurisdiction, without authority, partly barred by limitation and even on merits not sustainable and illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice and set aside the same, consequently direct the 5th Respondent not to act upon, give effect to, enforce or comply with the said DRC-13 dated 20.05.2026 and not to debit, freeze, lien, attach or otherwise deal with Account No. 50200047679844 standing in the name of the Petitioner,, and to pass 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 pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings, including recovery of tax, penalty , interest and late fees pursuant to the impugned Order of Assessment, Penalty, Interest and Late Fees of Order bearing Demand ID: ZD371225041155N dated 30.12.2025 and consequential orders dated 01-04-2025 and dated 20.05.2026 (DIN: 3720052654402), by directing the 5th Respondent to unfreeze the bank account of the petitioner, further not to attach or in any manner deal with Account No.50200047679844 standing in the name of the Petitioner, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass IA NO: 2 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 may be pleased to Direct the Respondents 1 to 4 to forthwith issue necessary instructions / directions to the 5th Respondent Bank to de-freeze the Petitioner’s Account No.50200047679844 so as to enable the Petitioner to operate the said account in terms of the interim order dated 28.05.2026 passed by this Hon’ble Court, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. PALLA BALU ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

2. CHALASANI AJAY KUMAR The Court made the following:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

AND

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR

WP No.14916 OF 2026 ORDER:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya)

1. The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by summary of order in Form GST DRC-07, dt.30.12.2025 of the 3rd respondent on various grounds.

2. Learned arguing counsel for the petitioner Mr.V.V.Narayana Rao inter alia submits that before passing the impugned order, a composite notice was issued proposing to make assessment for different tax periods from 2020-21 to 2024-25.

3. He submits that, though by an interim order dt.28.05.2026, the said operation of the assessment order of the respondent No.3 was stayed by this Court, subject to the petitioner paying 20% of the demanded tax within four (04) weeks and to enable the petitioner to operate the bank account, due to freezing of the account, the petitioner could not comply the said order, nor was able to raise funds to deposit the amount.

4. Be that as it may, the learned counsel submits that in fact similar cases with regard to issuance of composite notice and composite order passed thereon by the concerned authorities of the department fell for consideration in number of cases and a co-ordinate bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.11028 of 2025 and batch, disposed of the same while setting aside the impugned proceedings.

5. Mr.Mannam Venkata Krishna Rao, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax does not dispute the submissions made with reference to the decision rendered by this Court in W.P.No.11028 of 2025 and batch. “17. Section 74(3) is in parimateria with Section 73(3). However, subsection (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.”

6. Having considered the submissions made and in the light of the above cited decision, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition on similar lines, as it is not in dispute that the assessment order is covering tax period from 2020-21 to 2024-

25.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned order. It is made clear that the proper officer is at liberty to issue separate notices and proceed with assessment of returns in accordance with law.

8. It is needless to say that the period from the date of impugned order till the date of receipt of this order shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation.

9. Upon issuance of appropriate notices, the petitioner is at liberty to file a reply, including objections with reference to limitation and other aspects.

There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

______________________

JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR 07.07.2026 DR

Whether the order is:- Speaking Yes/No /Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No /Non-Reportable Yes/No

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

WP No.14916 of 2026 Date 07.07.2026

U DR