KAMMA ARUNA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 28 Jan 2026
- Bench
- R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, T C D SEKHAR
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 19, 21, 226
- Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 s. 74(5)
- APGST Act, 2017
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. A Division Bench of this Court, in W.P.No.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…
- Para 66. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned order, dated 30.12.2025, leaving it open to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings, for each assessment year separately.
Judgment
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring aggrieved by the Show Cause Notice dated 26.07.2024 in Form GST-DRCOl A in DIN No.20240755YL0000222F17 and Show Cause Notice, dated 30.06.2025 in DIN No.20250655YL000000C4A issued by respondent No.4for the multiple Assessment Years 2018-2019 to 2023-2024 under Section 74(5) of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 r/w. Rule 142(1A) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 and consequential Assessment Order, dated 30.12.2025 in DIN No.20251255YL0000424307 directing me to pay Rs. 51,09,599/- (Rupees Fifty One Lakhs and Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Nine) out of which Rs. 18,74,938/- is towards COST and SGST, Rs. 18,74,938/- is towards penalty and Rs. 13,59,723/- towards interest issued by the respondent No.3 for the multiple Tax Periods 2018-2019 to 2023-2024 as arbitrary. illegal, colorable exercise of power contrary to various provisions of CGST Act, 2017 and APGST Act, 2017 apart from being violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside Show Cause Notice dated 26.07.2024 in Form GST- DRCOIA in DIN No.20240755YL0000222F17 and DIN Show No.20250655YL000000C4Aissued consequential DINin NO.20251255YL0000424307 issued by the respondent No.3 and pass Order, respondent No.4 Assessment
30.12.2025
30.06.2025 Notice, Cause 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 stay all further proceedings in pursuance Order, dated 30.12.2025 in DIN No.20251255YL0000424307 directing me to pay Rs. 51,09,599/- (Rupees Fifty One Lakhs and Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Nine) out of which Rs. 18,74,938/- is towards COST and SGST, Rs. 18,74,938/- is towards penalty and Rs. 13,59,723/- respondent No.3 for the multiple Tax Periods 2018-2019 to 2023- 2024pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass issued by towards interest Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. KAMMA PAVAN CHOUDARY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 3 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.2010 of 2026 Heard Sri Kamma Pavan Choudary, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes appearing for the respondents.
The petitioner is a registered Company, which has been served with an Order of Assessment, dated 30.12.2025, passed by the 3rd respondent. This Order of Assessment covers the period from 2018-2019 to 2023-2024.
The petitioner, after having raised various grounds of challenge, has pressed the ground that, a single assessment order passed, for more than one financial year, would be violative of the provisions of Section 73 and Section 74 of the G.S.T. Act, 2017, and consequently, set aside the orders of assessment/appeals.
A Division Bench of this Court, in W.P.No.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 being a composite order. 4 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.2010 of 2026 In that view of the matter, the present Writ 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, dated 30.12.2025, leaving it open to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings, for each assessment year separately.
Needless to say, 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. 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:28.01.2026 KPV 116 5 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.2010 of 2026 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION No.2010 of 2026 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
28.01.2026 KPV
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 impugned
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 14, 19, 21, 226; Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 — s. 74(5); APGST Act, 2017; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 28 Jan 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.