APHC010407112025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3543] THURSDAY, THE 6th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 20774/2025 Between: 1. M/S.SRI LAKSHMI GANGA BHAVANI TRADERS, D.NO.44/34-1-1, CHEMMUMIYAPET, VIJAYANAGAR COLONY, KADAPA-516 003. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR.B.RAMA GANGI REDDY ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST, KADAPA-1 CIRCLE, KADAPA. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STI, REGIONAL GST AUDIT AND ENFORCEMENT OFFICE, TIRUPATI. TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 3. THE SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE VISAKHAPATNAM ZONAL UNIT, SUIYABAGH, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530 020. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CENTRAL TAX, CENTRAL GST RANGE, KADAPA. 5. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 6. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001. NJS,J & TCDS,J W.P No.20774 of 2025 2 7. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI - 100 001 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P S P SURESH KUMAR NJS,J & TCDS,J W.P No.20774 of 2025 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Writ Petition No:20774 of 2025 The Court made the following Order: (per Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.S.P Suresh Kumar, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax along with Mr. S.A.V.Sai Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. With the consent of learned counsel on both sides, this Writ Petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission. 3. Petitioner, a proprietorship firm registered under Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short “the Act”) with GSTIN:37AIJPR3400J2Z5, is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of groundnuts & groundnut seeds and decorticating of groundnuts into seeds, aggrieved by common Assessment Order dated 23.05.2025 filed the present writ petition on various grounds. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the various averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, made submissions inter alia that the order of respondent No.1 covering tax period for the different Assessment Years i.e., 2021-22 to 2024-25 (upto October, 2024) is not sustainable, in the light of the decision rendered by this Court in S J Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner & ors. (W.P No.11028 of 2025) dated 17.09.2025., and seeks to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders. NJS,J & TCDS,J W.P No.20774 of 2025 4 5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader, while refuting the said contentions sought to sustain the impugned order. His submission is that the petitioner instead of availing the remedy of appeal had straightaway filed the present writ petition and the same is not maintainable. However, he has not disputed the decision rendered by this Court in S J Constructions (referred to supra). 6. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused material on record. 7. Though several contentions were raised in the writ petition, this Court feels it not necessary to examine the same in detail. Suffice to state that impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that the same is a composite order covering the tax periods 2021-22 to 2024-25 (upto October, 2024). 8. In W.P No.11028 of 2025 & batch, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.09.2025 held as follows: “17. Section 74(3) is in parimateria with Section 73(3). However, sub- section (4) of Section 74 does not contain the term “such tax period”. This non mention would not, in our opinion, make any difference to the aforesaid interpretation. Apart from this, there are certain other provisions, which would also have to be considered. Any interpretation of an Act should not result in some of the other provisions becoming otiose or reduced in scope. As rightly pointed out by the Hon’ble High Court at Madras, the right of a registered person to obtain NJS,J & TCDS,J W.P No.20774 of 2025 5 benefit under Section 128 of APGST Act as well as the right to invoke the remedy of appeal against the orders of assessment either under Section 73 or under Section 74 would get impacted if a common order is permitted to be issued in relation to more than one assessment / financial year. 18. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion 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.” 9. In the light of the above cited decision and for reasons alike, the impugned order is set aside. Writ Petition is allowed, as indicated above, and all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned assessment order shall also stand set aside. 10. Needless to observe that respondent No.1 is at liberty to issue separate notices in respect of relevant tax periods and proceed with the assessments in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to the petitioner. 11. Further, the period from the date of passing of the impugned order till the date of receipt of this order shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Date:06.08.2026 Ksj