Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/23357/2023 of M. Subramaniyam, Vs Union of India, on 24 February 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 23357/2023 Between: 1. M.
APHC010450192023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 23357/2023
Between:
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.
1. M. SUBRAMANIYAM,, S/O. MARASWAMY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, D.NO. 5-27-121, SRISAILAM PROJECT-518102, NANDYAL DIST.
...PETITIONER AND
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, 4TH FLOOR, A-WING, SHASTRIBHAWAN, NEW DELHI - 110001.
2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (CT-I) DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STFAC, NANDYAL-I CIRCLE, KURNOOL DIVISION, NANDYAL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, APGENCO, SRISAILAM RIGHT BANK, POWER HOUSE.
...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 an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the impugned Annexure-P1
unsigned order dated 27-04-2023 obtained from web portal of the department issued by the 3rd respondent without considering the GSTR-3B returns filed vide Annexure -P2 reflecting the taxes paid as also the amounts towards taxes collected or deducted but seeking to collect the tax, interest and penalty @ 100 percent as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, violating articles 14, 19(1)(g) , 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 a penalty amount in terms of the impugned order dated 27-04- 2023 in Rs. 2,82,138/- under CGST and like amount of Rs. 2,82,138/- under APGST pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. M V J K KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. SANTHI CHANDRA (Jr. Standing Counsel for CBIC)
2. Y V ANIL KUMAR (Central Government Counsel)
3. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX
The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Heard Sri M. V. J. K. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner is a registered Company, which has been served with an order of assessment, dated 27.04.2023, passed by the 3rd respondent. This order of assessment covers the period from 2019-20 to 2020-21.
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 Sections 73 & 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.Nos.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 27.04.2023 and remand back to the respondents, leaving it open to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings, for each assessment year separately. Coercive steps taken against the petitioner, including attachment, for recovery of the dues under this order shall also stand set aside. 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
_________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J
Date:- 25.02.2026
BSM
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 23357 of 2023
Date:-25.02.2026
BSM