APHC010491502025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 26594/2025 Between: 1. SHIRDI SAI ENTERPRISES, REPRESENTED BY THE PROPRIETOR- SRI KRISHNA REDDY SODA DOOR. 1-4-55, RTC WORK SHOP, BHAVANIPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-PIN-520012. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, INDRAKEELADRI CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA-I DIVISION, D.NO- 74-14- 2B,3RD FLOOR, KRISHNA NAGAR, YANAMALAKUDURU ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA, ANDHRA PRADESH- PIN- 520007 PETITIONER 2. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE (CT) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR (DISTRICT), AP, PIN- -522 503 ...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, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, setting aside the impugned arrear urgent notice, the claimed orders issued under Section 74 read with Section 122(1 )(ii) of the 2 COST Acts, 2017 and AP GST Acts, 2017 dated 07-07-2023, the impugned Intimation of Tax Ascertained in Form GST DRC-01, the alleged show-cause notice and its alleged common summary, the 3 reminders-cum-personal hearing Notices as ultra vires of the Article 14 and Article 141 of the Constitution of India, etc., and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 the collection of the disputed penalty of Rs.381,57,240; and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. J.N VENKATA SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 3 The Court made the following Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner was a registered person under the provisions of the Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”]. The registration of the petitioner was cancelled on 23.02.2021 with effect from 08.02.2021 and thereafter, the petitioner has not been carrying on any further business. 2. The petitioner approached this Court challenging the impugned order of assessment, dated 07.07.2023, on the ground that the said Order of assessment covers the period 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 and the same is impermissible in view of the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, in W.P.No.11028 of 2025 & batch, in the case of SJ Constructions Vs. The Assistant Commissioner & Ors. 3. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax for the respondents would contend that there is an inordinate delay in the petitioner approaching this Court inasmuch as the order impugned is dated 07.07.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that there is no delay on the part of the petitioner inasmuch as the said order, dated 07.07.2023, was not served on the petitioner and the petitioner had come to know of the said order only after steps were taken in the year 2025 to recover the taxes is said to have been demanded under the impugned order. 4. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax has produced the material available with the respondent authorities regarding service of the order. The covers in which the order of assessment is said to have been sent and has been returned on the ground of the petitioner not being available or on the ground of being refused. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, upon cancellation of his registration, had closed his business, and was not available at the office address, which was in the records of the respondent authorities. He would therefore submit that there was no service of notice on the petitioner. 4 5. A perusal of the material placed before this Court does not show any proof of service of the impugned order, dated 07.07.2023, on the petitioner. In such circumstances, we have to accept the delay in the petitioner approaching this Court. 6. The impugned Order of assessment, dated 07.07.2023, as set out above covers three separate assessment years. Such a composite order in relation to three separate years is impermissible in view of the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, in W.P.No.11028 of 2025 & batch, in the case of SJ Constructions Vs. The Assistant Commissioner & Ors. 7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the order of assessment, dated 07.07.2023 and the matter is remanded back to the assessing authority to pass an appropriate order for each assessment year separately. Needless to say, the period from the date of the impugned order, till the date of receipt of this order shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J _________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J Date: 24.12.2025 BSM 5 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION No.26594 of 2025 (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 24.12.2025 BSM