M/S VANI BALA SUBRAMANYA SILPA KALA MANDIRAM v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST, NANDYAL -II CIRCLE, KURNOOL
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned order of assessment, dated 29.04.2024 and remand back to the respondents, leaving it open to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings, for each assessment year separately, subject to payment of 20% of the…
Judgment
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 807/2026 Between:
1. M/S VANI BALA SUBRAMANYA SILPA KALA MANDIRAM,, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. DURUGADDA BALA SUBRAMANYAM ACHARI ST NO 1565/1, NANDYAL ROAD, ALLAGADA, KURNOOL, ANDHRA PRADESH, 518543 ...PETITIONER AND
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST, NANDYAL -II CIRCLE, KURNOOL DIVISION, ANDHRA PRADESH. - 518001
JOINT COMMISSIONER ST, KURNOOL DIVISION, ANDHRA PRADESH.-518001
ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER ST LEGAL, VIJAYAWADA, -520002 ANDHRA PRADESH.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (CT-II) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.- 522238 ...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 to pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction particularly one in the 2 Document nature 'WRIT OF MANDAMUS' a. Setting aside the Impugned order vide bearing Identification Number.DIN3729042478226 dated 29.04.2024 an amount of 1,58,62,500/- (IGST of Rs. 1,40,56,740/-, SGST of Rs. 17,47,164/- and CGST of Rs. 58,596/-) due to the non-payment of tax for the period from 2018-19 to 2020-21 (Upto November-20) under Section 73(9) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017. b. Setting aside impugned order for the payment of the Interest of Rs. 1,29,20,202/- including the IGST, CGST and SGST under Section 50 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017. c. Setting aside the order for the payment of the Penalty of Rs. 15,86,250/- (IGST of Rs. 14,05,673/- , SGST of Rs. 1,74,717/- and CGST of Rs.5,860/-) under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017. d. Pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 order stay of recovery of demand pursuant to the Impugned Orders bearing Document Identification Number. DIN3729042478226dated 29.04.2024 issued by RespondentNo. 1, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K.RAGHAVENDER REDDY 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) Heard Sri K. Raghavendra Reddy, 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 29.04.2024, passed by the 1st respondent. This order of assessment covers the period from 2018-2019 to 2020-2021.
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.
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 4 Petition is being disposed of, on this ground of challenge, leaving open the other grounds of challenge.
Operative part
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned order of assessment, dated 29.04.2024 and remand back to the respondents, leaving it open to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings, for each assessment year separately, subject to payment of 20% of the disputed tax. Any payments made after the impugned order had been passed shall be adjusted against the aforesaid 20%. 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: 27.04.2026 BSM 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 807 of 2026 Date: 27.04.2026 BSM
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 27 Apr 2026. The bench was R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, T C D SEKHAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.