WP/8058/2026 of M/s.Lohlya Edible Oils Private Limited, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 6 April 2026

1. M/S.LOHLYA EDIBLE OILS PRIVATE LIMITED,, GSTIN .37AABCL0085C1ZW REP. BY ITS GM (FINANCE AND ACCOUNTS) MR. BALASUBRAMANIAN RANGASAMI 25, APIIC, VAKALAPUDI, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI, ANDHRA PRADESH - 533 005

...PETITIONER AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (ST) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI - 522 237, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ST, STATE SPECIAL CIRCLE-I, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER (ST), KUNCHANAPALLI, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE - 522501

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ST, OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (ST) 2ND FLOOR, CT COMPLEX BUILDINGS, RAMANAYYAPETA, KAKINADA, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE - 533005

...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 topleased to issue a Writ, direction or order in the nature of writ of Certiorari or order calling for the records on the file of the second respondent in impugned Order-in-Original NO.ZD370226022492L (DIN. 3717022657767) dated 17.02.2026 for the financial year 2023-24 passed under Section 73 of the CGST/APGST Act, 2017, and the QUASH the same as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and devoid of merit and consequentially quash the same and 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 DISPENSE WITH the production of the original impugned Order- in-Original NO.ZD370226022492L (DIN: 3717022657767) dated 17.02.2026 for the financial year 2023-24 passed under Section 73 of the CGST/APGST Act, 2017, issued by the Second respondent herein before this Hon’ble Court, and 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 pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned Order-in- Original NO.ZD370226022492L (DIN: 3717022657767) dated 17.02.2026 for the financial year 2023-24 passed under Section 73 of the CGST/APGSTAct, 2017, passed by the second Respondent pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. SINGAMSETTY V.M. SANKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

The Court made the following Common Order:

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

As the issues raised in these Writ Petitions are one and the same, they are being disposed of, by way of this Common Order.

2. Heard Mrs. Aparna Nandakumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Singamsetty V. M. Sankar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. A. V. Sai Kumar, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the respondents.

3. The petitioner is involved in the business of importing crude edible oil and refining the same for sale. The premises of the petitioner were subjected to inspection, after which proceedings were initiated for assessment. The details of the years of assessment and the dates of orders of assessment are given herein below.

Sl.No.

Writ Petition No.

Year of assessment

Date of order of assessment

2023-2024 17.02.2026

2022-2023 03.02.2026

2021-2022 30.12.2025

4. All these orders are sought to be challenged by the petitioner, on the ground that, the said orders suffered from violation of Principles of Natural Justice.

5. The Assessing Authority had initiated proceedings, on the ground that, the standard yield of refined oil from the crude oil would be 94.5%. However, the yield obtained by the petitioner, for the following years, is as follows:

Sl.No.

Year of assessment

Percentage of standard yield of refined sunflower oil

2021-2022 96.79%

2022-2023 94.86%

2023-2024 95.43%

6. The Assessing Officer took the view that, the claim of the petitioner beyond yield of 94.5%, cannot be accepted and the excess yield would have to be treated as taxable.

7. The petitioner has approached this Court with the contention that, the petitioner, upon receiving the initial notice, regarding this aspect, had sought information from the Assessing Officer as to how the Assessing Officer, had arrived, at the bench mark of 94.5% and the same had not been answered by the Assessing Officer at any stage. The petitioner relies upon the letters sent by the petitioner, on 28.05.2025, 19.06.2025 & 23.08.2025 and the written objections filed, as part of the personal hearing held, on 13.10.2025, to contend that this issue was raised but was not answered by the Assessing Officer.

8. The impugned orders of assessment do not contain any reference to the letters, dated 28.05.2025 & 23.08.2025, in some of the assessment orders. However, the letter, dated 28.05.2025, has specifically been referred to in the subsequent representation, dated 19.06.2025. Similarly, additional submissions, as part of the personal hearing also referred to this request.

9. In these circumstances, it must be held that the petitioner had made a request for the said information and the source, on the basis of which such a bench mark is being fixed. The record does not disclose any reply by the Assessing Officer, to such an enquiry.

10. In such circumstances, it must be held that the petitioner did not get an appropriate opportunity of hearing as the material, on the basis of which the Assessing Officer had initiated assessment was not given to the petitioner.

11. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are allowed, setting aside the aforesaid orders of assessment, for the assessment years, mentioned in the above table and the assessments are remanded back to the Assessing Officer to set out the source of information and the details of the information, on the basis of which a standard yield of 94.5% was fixed. Thereafter, the petitioner is entitled to file it’s objections to the said benchmark as well as any other issue. The Assessing Officer shall pass orders after adequate opportunity is given to the petitioner.

There shall be no order as to costs.

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

_______________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J

Date:07.04.2026 KPV

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

AND

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

WRIT PETITION Nos: 8058, 8065 & 8090 of 2026 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

07.04.2026

KPV