Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pohtireddy Venkata Reddy vs Assistant Commissioner on 28 April, 2026
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
APHC010220862026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3529]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 11171/2026
Between:
1. POHTIREDDY VENKATA REDDY, S/O VEERAYYA (VEERA REDDY),
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O D.NO.11/118,MAIN ROAD,
YERRAGONDAPALEM, PRAKASAM DISTRICT -523 327
...PETITIONER
AND
1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MARKAPUR CIRCLE, NELLORE
DIVISION, MARKAPUR-523 316
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST, OFFICE OF ADDITIONAL
COMMISSIONER (ST), REGIONAL GST AUDIT AND
ENFORCEMENT OFFICE, TIRUPATI - 517 502
3. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER ST, REGIONAL GST AUDIT AND
ENFORCEMENT OFFICE, TIRUPATI - 517 502
4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, REVENUE (CT) DEPT., STATE SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI- 522 241
5. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, 3RD FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP
BUILDING, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2
6. THE BRANCH MANAGER, YERRAGONDAPALEM BRANCH, STATE
BANK OF INDIA, YERRAGONDAPALEM, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523
327
...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 issue a Writ of Mandamus of any other appropriate Writ or direction declaring that the Assessment Order and Summary of Orders dated 24.09.2025 under Section 74 passed by Respondent No. 1 and Show Cause Notice and Summary of Notice in Form DRC-01 dated 16.06.2025 under Section 74 issued by the Respondent No. 2 for the period from 2021-22 to 2024-25 and the subsequent notice of attachment of bank account, recovery of an amount of Rs 65,10,000/- on 24.03.2026 and keeping a Lein of the remaining demand of the impugned order in the Respondent No, 6 bank, by passing a composite order for four (4) years, without considering the explanation and invoking section 74 on the issue of differential tax of 6percent on works contract services provided to State Government, is as being illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, vitiated by procedural irregularity in clubbing the adjudication for 4 years in one proceeding, and in violation of principles of natural justice.
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 to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned Assessment Order and Summary of Orders dated 24.09.2025 under Section 74 passed by Respondent No. 1 and Show Cause Notice and Summary of Notice in Form DRC-01 dated 16.06.2025 under Section 74 issued by the Respondent No. 2 for the period from 2021-22 to 2024-25, and pass IA NO: 2 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 to suspend the notice of attachment of bank account in Respondent No. 6 bank pursuant to the impugned Assessment Order and Summary of Orders dated 24.09.2025 under Section 74 passed by Respondent No. 1 and Show Cause Notice and Summary of Notice in Form DRC-01 dated 16.06.2025 under Section 74 issued by the Respondent No. 2 for the period from 2021-22 to 2024-25, and pass 3 Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. L CHANDRA OBUL REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following:4
The Court made the following Order:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri L. Chandra Obul Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for the Respondents 1 to 4 and learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.5-Union of India.
2. The petitioner is a registered person, who has been served with an Order in Original, dated 24.09.2025 vide DIN3724092549061 by the 1st respondent. This Order in Original covers the period from 2021-2022 to 2024-
2025.
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 Section 73 and Section 74 of the GST Act, 2017, and consequently, set aside the impugned order.
4. 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. 5
5. In the circumstances, with a view to balance both the difficulties being faced by the registered persons and the need for the State to maintain its administration of tax collection, it would be appropriate that writ petitions, filed by such registered persons, with delay, can be considered, subject to the registered persons paying 20% of the disputed tax. We are also fortified, in this course of action, in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in W.P.No.1474 of 2026.
6. The petitioner has raised various grounds of challenge. However, the petitioner is pressing the primary ground of the Order in Original being a composite order of assessment. 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.
7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned Order, dated 24.09.2025 and remand back to the respondents, leaving it open to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings, for each assessment year separately. This order is subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax, within a period of six (06) weeks. Such deposit shall abide by the decision in the order of assessment. Any payment made or any amount recovered from the petitioner, after the passing of the impugned orders, shall be adjusted against the aforesaid 20%. Needless to say, that the 6 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 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: 28.04.2026 KA 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 11171 of 2026 Date: 28.04.2026 KA