Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/17897/2026 of Katakam Infra Projects (India) Private Limited Vs The Assistant Commissioner (State Tax) on 5 July 2026
for orders : Date of pronouncement : 06.07.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010331492026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3543] MONDAY, THE 6th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE
Date of reserved for orders :
Date of pronouncement : 06.07.2026
Date of uploading :
APHC010331492026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE 6th DAY OF JULY 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 17897/2026
Between:
1. KATAKAM
INFRA
PROJECTS
(INDIA)
PRIVATE
LIMITED,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SMT. KATAKAM
PADMAVATHI,
7-59A,
SVKP
STREET,
CUMBUM
TOWN,
PRAKASAM, ANDHRA PRADESH - 523 333.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE
ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER
STATE
TAX,
MARKAPUR
CIRCLE, NELLORE DIVISION, D.NO 10-204/36, S.NO.226/A, BESIDE
SVKP
COLLEGE,
Y.PALEM
ROAD,
MARKAPUR,
PRAKASAM, ANDHRA PRADESH - 518 002.
2. THE
DEPUTY
ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER
STATE
TAX,
MARKAPUR CIRCLE, NELLORE DIVISION, D.NO 10-204/36, S.NO.226/A, BESIDE
SVKP
COLLEGE,
Y.PALEM
ROAD,
MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM, ANDHRA PRADESH - 518 002.
3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT (COMMERCIAL
TAX), A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELEGAPUDI - 522 238.
4. UNION OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY
ITS SECRETARY (REVENUE), NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110
001.
5. AXIS BANK LTD, MAIN BRANCH, ONGOLE REPRESENTED BY ITS
BRANCH MANAGER, D.NO.37-1-406/10, TRUNK ROAD, OPP LIE
OF INDIA, BHAGYA NAGAR, ONGOLE, ANDHRA PRADESH - 523
001.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. ANIL KUMAR BEZAWADA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
Writ Petition No:17897 of 2026
The Court made the following Order: (per NJS,J)
The petitioner was served with order of assessment for the month of June, 2023. The Order had been passed under Section 62 of the GST Act on the ground that the petitioner had not been filing its returns.
2.
Petitioner has approached this Court with the contention that the respondents are seeking to recover the amount demanded under the said order of assessment despite the fact that the petitioner had filed its returns, in Form GSTR 3B for the relevant period along with late fee. It is contended that no tax or interest was payable as the returns related to exempted turnovers.
3.
The details of the date of demand order, date of filing of returns etc., are set out in the table below:
Month
Date of
impugned
Demand
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
Date of filing of Form GSTR 3B CGST late fee u/s 62(2) SGST Late fees u/s. 62(2) June-2023 21.08.2023 15.12.2023 2,500 2,500
4. Section 62(2) of the GST Act stipulates that any order passed under Section 62, would be deemed to have been withdrawn once necessary returns are filed within the period stipulated under the said provision. In the event of delay, late fee is required to be paid by the registered person who seeks to file the said returns.
5. In the present case, petitioner is said to have paid the necessary late fee. In such circumstances, it would have to be deemed that the order, detailed above, passed under Section 62 of the GST Act is deemed to have been withdrawn.
6. Further, similar issue has fallen for consideration before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench) in Writ Petition (MD) No.18740 of 2024 and after considering the same, the High Court of Madras had held that in view of the amendment to Section 62(2) of the Act, it would be appropriate to condone the delay in filing GSTR 3-B returns and consequently the Assessment Order would have to be deemed to be withdrawn.
7. Further, this Court following the judgment rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Madras, allowed W.P.No.20705 of 2025 filed by M/s. Brothers Engineering and Errectors Limited Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. In such circumstances, the benefit under Section 62(2) of the Act has to be extended to the petitioner as well.
8. Accordingly, Writ Petition is allowed. Bank attachments, if any, caused under the aforesaid order of assessment, shall stand set aside. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
_____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Date:06.07.2026 Ksj
Whether the order is: Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No