High Court of Andhra Pradesh4 August 2026

Kanaka Reddy Seerapu v. Union of India

For assesseeRemanded

WRIT PETITION NO. 21576 OF 2026

The ruling in brief

Where petitioner, a registered firm, was served with a composite adjudication order for multiple tax periods, since revenue did not dispute factual or legal infirmity, a single composite order for multiple periods was held unsustainable and required to be set aside, leaving authority free to issue separate orders for each period after following due process

Provisions considered

CGST S.61

Section 61 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.

The ruling in brief

Related rulings

GSTAT Bengaluru3 Sept 2026

For assessee

Peekay Industries v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Where final ITC demand under section 73 was confirmed under CGST and SGST heads on basis of a separate working treating ITC of 2018-19 as claimed in 2019-20, without explaining abandonment of primary IGST reconciliation or basis of computation, such demand was held unsustainable as adjudicating authority had failed to establish computation from books and records GST: Where ITC was denied merely on account of mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, authorities having failed to conduct any enquiry into concerned suppliers or their tax payments and having not properly examined appellant’s reconciliation, such mismatch could justify verification but could not by itself be treated as conclusive proof of wrongful availment of ITC GST: Where demand under section 73 was confirmed under CGST and SGST despite appellant’s reply and reconciliation being confined to IGST, and authorities failed to consider reconciliation or resolve inconsistency between two computations, demand was held unsustainable as appellant had not been given proper opportunity to contest CGST and SGST liability GST: Where for Financial Year 2019-20 mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A was alleged and demand was confirmed by adjudicating authority as well as first appellate authority, authorities having failed to establish breach of section 16(2)(c) and section 16(2)(aa) being inapplicable for the relevant period, impugned adjudication and appellate orders were to be set aside and matter was to be remanded for fresh adjudication strictly confined to show-cause notice GST: Where ITC dispute for Financial Year 2019-20 was decided against appellant for non-production of supplier certificates prescribed under CBI…

Rajasthan High Court16 Jul 2026

For assesseeRemanded

Ramhari and Brothers v. Joint Commissioner (State Tax)

Where petitioner, a sole proprietorship trading in oil, faced recovery of GST without any notice in Form GST ASMT-10 and learned of proceedings only after recovery, absence of mandatory notice and opportunity to explain discrepancies rendered adjudication and recovery actions invalid, leading to quashing of demands with liberty for fresh proceedings as per law

Gauhati High Court3 Sept 2026

For revenue

HD Associates v. Union of India

Where search was conducted at business premises of partnership firm under Section 67 based on FORM GST INS-01 authorization, plea that search was vitiated for want of authorization failed as valid authorization existed, statute did not require prior disclosure of reasons to taxable person, and adjudicating authority was to verify validity of authorization and records during adjudication. GST: Where department raised demand alleging misdeclaration or suppression after search and investigation found incriminating documents, absence of scrutiny proceedings under Section 61 did not invalidate consolidated demand-cum-show cause notice since search under Section 67 and investigation provided foundation, but if any demand rests solely on return scrutiny, relevant statutory compliance must be ensured and can be examined during adjudication. GST: Where petitioner received consolidated demand-cum-show cause notice invoking Section 74(1) for certain years and Section 74A(1) for another, objection to consolidation was untenable as no bar exists against a multi-year notice, but authority must determine liability and applicability of each provision separately for each financial year with attention to limitation and statutory requirements. GST: Where SCN invoked penalty provisions under both sections 74 or 74A and 122 in respect of same act or omission, such reference in notice does not violate bar against double penalty under section 75(13) at proposal stage, but authorities must ensure no double penalty is actually imposed during adjudication and imposition in compliance with statutory prohibition.…

Related rulings

GSTAT Bengaluru3 Sept 2026

For assessee

Kanaka Reddy Seerapu v. Union of India

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Kanaka Reddy Seerapu v. Union of India

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Peekay Industries v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Ramhari and Brothers v. Joint Commissioner (State Tax)

HD Associates v. Union of India

Read the full analysis