WP/16519/2026 of M/s. SRI SAI GRANITES Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax on 23 June 2026

1. M/S. SRI SAI GRANITES, ( REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI, REDDIVARI PRASANNA KUMAR REDDY S/0. S/O. REDDIVARI RAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS) SY. NO. 6, PALARR PALLE VILLAGE,PUNGANUR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT,'ANDHRA PRADESH - 517247

...PETITIONER AND

1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, TIRUPATI CGST, DIVISION 15-30/4, PADMAVATHI NAGAR,

MAHILA UNIVERSITY ROAD, TIRUPATI, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517502.

2. THE JOINT ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER APPEALS, CENTRAL TAX AND CUSTOMS,D.NO. 3-30-15, RING ROAD, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH.-522006

3. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, 3RD FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI-110 001.

...RESPONDENT(S): 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 tomay be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction particularly one in the nature WRIT OF MANDAMUS i) Setting aside the Order-in-Original No. 07/2023- GST(AC) dated 01.11.2023 passed by the 1st Respondent (Annexure P-1), to the extent it demands balance interest of Rs. 21,37,248/- under Section 50(1) of the CGST Act and balance penalty of Rs. 54,50,465/- under Section 122(2)(b) read with Section 74(1) of the CGST. Act, 2017 (ii) Setting aside the Order-in-Appeal No. TTD-GST-000- APP-050-2024-25 dated 31 12 2024 passed by the 2nd Respondent (Annexure P-2), rejecting the appeal in toto and upholding the impugned orders (iii) Declare that the invocation of Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 and imposition of penalty under Section 122(2)(b) at 100 percent of the tax amount is illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to law in the facts and circumstances of the present case 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 may be pleased to order stay of recovery of the impugned balance interest demand of Rs. 21,37,248/- and balance penalty demand of Rs. 54,50,465/- (totalling Rs. 75,87,713/-) pursuant to the impugned orders, pending disposal of the Writ Petition, and to pass such Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. K.RAGHAVENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. SANTHI CHANDRA

The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

Heard Sri K. Raghavender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Santhi Chandra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner is a registered Company, which has been served with an order of assessment, dated 01.11.2023 passed by the 1st respondent. This order of assessment covers the period from 2017-18 to 2018-19.

3. The petitioner, after having raised various grounds of challenge, has pressed the ground that, a single order of assessment, issued for more than one financial year, would be violative of the provisions of Section 73 and Section 74 of the GST Act, 2017, and consequently, set aside the impugned order of assessment.

4. A Division Bench of this Court, in W.P.No.11028 of 2025 & batch, after considering the said question, had held 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.

5. The petitioner has raised various grounds of challenge. However, the petitioner is pressing the primary ground of the order of assessment being a composite order of assessment. 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.

6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned order of assessment, dated 01.11.2023 and remand back to the respondents, leaving it open to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings, for each assessment year separately. This order is subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax, within a period of six (06) weeks. Any payment made or any amount recovered from the petitioner, after the passing of the impugned order, shall be adjusted against the aforesaid 20%.

7. Needless to say, the period from the date of issuance of the impugned order of assessment till the date of receipt of this order shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J

Date:24.06.2026

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

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

WRIT PETITION NO: 16519/2026 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

Date:24.06.2026 MJA