NJSJ & TCDS, J WP_19787_2026 1 APHC010362682026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 19787 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-5 [3543] M/s.sri Mahalakshmi Furniture, ...Petitioner Vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: PADALA VENKATA SRIRAM REDDY Advocate for Respondent: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX CORAM : SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR DATE : 21th July 2026 NJSJ & TCDS, J WP_19787_2026 2 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WP No.19787 OF 2026 ORDER:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice T.C.D. Sekhar) 1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the assessment order dt.06.08.2024 in relation to the tax period 2019- 2020 to 2023-240 issued by the 5th respondent on various grounds. 2. The counsel for the petitioner, though raised several grounds challenging the impugned order, during the course of hearing he would submit that the said order is not sustainable in law by placing reliance on judgment dt.17.09.2025 in WP No.11028 of 2025 and batch, whereunder this Court while dealing with a similar issue on hand, had held that single show cause notice or a single composite assessment order cannot be passed in relation to more than one year. 3. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax does not dispute the submissions made with reference to the decision rendered by this Court in W.P.No.11028 of 2025 and batch. NJSJ & TCDS, J WP_19787_2026 3 4. Having considered the submissions made and in the light of the above cited decision, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition on similar lines, as it is not in dispute that the assessment order is covering tax period from 2019-2020 to 2023- 2024. However, in the instant case, the order under challenge was passed on 06.08.2024 and there is no plausible explanation offered by the petitioner for the delay in approaching this Court. Therefore, taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the writ petition, on condition that the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax under the order under challenge. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dt.06.08.2024 passed by the 5th respondent, on condition that the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax. Further, it is made clear that the proper officer is at liberty to issue separate notices in relation to each tax period and proceed with assessment of returns in accordance with law. 6. It is needless to say that the period from the date of impugned order till the date of receipt of this order shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation. NJSJ & TCDS, J WP_19787_2026 4 7. Upon issuance of appropriate notices, the petitioner is at liberty to file a reply, including objections with reference to limitation and all other aspects. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA ______________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR 21.07.2026 DR NJSJ & TCDS, J WP_19787_2026 5 78 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WP No.19787 of 2026 Date 21.07.2026 U DR