APHC010409182026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE 7th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 22331 OF 2026 Between: 1. M/s. Sri Suneetha Traders, Rep. by Smt. Pitchipati Suneetha, Proprietrix, W/o P Rama Chandra Reddy, aged about 48 years. Add. D.No.44/29-3, Chemmumiyapeta, Kadapa, YSR District, Andhra Pradesh - 516 002 ...Petitioner AND 1. Superintendent of Central Tax, Kadapa COST Range, D.No.1/2553-1, IV Floor, LKR Towers, Rajiv Marg Road, APHB Colony, Kadapa, YSR District, Andhra Pradesh - 516 004. 2. Additional Commissioner of Central Tax GST Appeals, Office of the Commissioner of Central Tax AND Customs (Appeals) D.No.3-30-15, Ring Road, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh - 522 006. 3. Commissioner of Central Tax, Tirupati, CGST Commissionerate, 9/86-A, Amaravathi Nagar, West Church Compound, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh - 517 501. 4. The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi - 110 001. 2 5. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (CT) Dept., State Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati - 522 237. ...Respondents 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the Order-in-Original and the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 31.08.2023 passed by Respondent No.1 under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017, and the Order-in-Appeal dated 29.11.2024 passed by Respondent No.2 under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, for the period from March, 2018 to August, 2021, as being illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, passed without maintaining the minimum gap of three (3) months between the Show Cause Notice and the order, passed by rejecting the shipping bills as tampered without any material, contrary to Notification No.41/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 23.10.2017, without holding any enquiry with the merchant exporters or the Customs authorities, in violation of the principles of natural justice, and vitiated by procedural irregularity in bunching five financial years into a single composite proceeding, and consequently set aside the same, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: L CHANDRA OBUL REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following order: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION No: 22331 OF 2026 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Santhi Chandra, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC representing respondent Nos.1 to 3. With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. Petitioner, a proprietary concern engaged in the business of trading of ground nut seed is an assessee on the rolls of respondent No.1 with GSTIN No.37AHJPN4376L1ZO. Aggrieved by the Order in Original dated 31.08.2023 passed by the 1st respondent and subsequent Appeal in Original dated 29.11.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to various averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, inter alia contends that the impugned Order in Original dated 31.08.2023 passed by the 1st respondent for the tax period March, 2018 to August, 2021 covering multiple tax periods, which was entertained in impugned Order in Appeal dated 29.11.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent, is impermissible in Law under the provisions of Central Goods and Service Tax Act. He also placed reliance on the decision of a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in S.J. Constructions v. The Assistant Commissioner & Others (W.P No.11028 of 2025 & batch), dated 17.09.2025, wherein, it was held as follows: 4 “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 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.” 4. Learned Standing Counsel has not disputed the legal position, much less the factual aspects with regard to passing of composite orders impugned in the writ petition. As the original order itself is not sustainable in law, the order in appeal against the same is also not tenable. 5. In view of the factual and legal position, the impugned orders dated 31.08.2023 and 29.11.2024 are set aside. However, the 1st respondent is at liberty to issue separate orders for each assessment year and proceed with the assessments in respect of tax periods in question, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, in accordance with Law. 5 6. This order, however, shall be subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 30% of the disputed tax, within a period of six (06) weeks, from the date of receipt of this order. Any payment made by the petitioner, after the impugned order, had been passed, shall be set off, for the purpose of calculating the aforesaid 30%. 7. 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. 8. Needless to say that all the other contentions raised in the writ petition are left open to the petitioner to raise in the appeal. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J _______________ T.C.D.SEKHAR, J GVK 6 120 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION No. 22331 OF 2026 Dt. 07.08.2026 GVK