High Court of Andhra Pradesh14 August 2026

Sri Vijaya Traders v. Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes

For assessee

WRIT PETITION NO. 23181 OF 2026

The ruling in brief

Where registered dealer failed to file GSTR-3B for March 2025 and assessment was completed under Section 62, but subsequently filed the return with late fee and interest, assessment order was deemed withdrawn as per Section 62(2) and consequential proceedings were revoked, though liability for interest and late fee remained

Provisions considered

Section 62, read with sections 47 and 50, 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

Andhra Pradesh High Court3 Jul 2026

For assessee

Siva Electricals v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax

Best-judgment assessment raising GST demand was deemed withdrawn where petitioner subsequently filed GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B and paid tax, interest and late fee, though beyond 30 days; hence, no recovery could be initiated or continued under assessment order

Madras High Court2 Jul 2026

Narasus Diary v. Deputy State Tax Officer II

Where assessee's registration was cancelled and best judgment assessment determined tax liability for June 2022 due to non-filing of return, but assessee later filed GSTR-3B for that period disclosing tax paid in excess of assessed liability; fresh consideration of assessment was warranted

GSTAT Raipur24 Sept 2026

For revenue

Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner State Tax Chhatisgarh

Where manufacturer claimed refund of unutilised ITC due to inverted duty structure and was sanctioned amount exceeding entitlement under Section 54 read with Rule 89(5), such payment qualified as refund and, if in excess, constituted an 'erroneous refund' recoverable under Section 73, without exclusion based on ITC origin, as confirmed by subsequent rule and circular. GST: Where assessee received refund on inverted-duty structure via RFD-06 order and department did not appeal or seek revision, initiation of recovery proceedings for erroneous refund under Section 73 was permissible as Section 73 operates independently with its own notice and limitation, and non-invocation of appeal or revision mechanisms does not bar such recovery action. GST: Where appellant received erroneous refund of Rs. 90.35 lakhs on inverted-duty structure and paid back principal amount during recovery proceedings without paying interest, interest under Section 50 at 18 percent per annum for delayed period was legally leviable as interest is compensatory, and mere payment of principal did not conclude liability or proceedings under Section 73

Related rulings

Andhra Pradesh High Court3 Jul 2026

For assessee

Sri Vijaya Traders v. Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Sri Vijaya Traders v. Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Siva Electricals v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax

Narasus Diary v. Deputy State Tax Officer II

Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner State Tax Chhatisgarh

Read the full analysis