High Court of Andhra Pradesh16 September 2026

Venspra Impex v. Deputy Commissioner ST

For assessee

WRIT PETITION NO. 26359 OF 2026

The ruling in brief

Where petitioner received a single composite assessment order under section 74 covering multiple tax periods, such composite adjudication was impermissible as each tax period requires distinct notice and adjudication, making impugned consolidated assessment unsustainable, thus same was to be set aside with liberty to issue separate notices for each period

Provisions considered

CGST S.74

Section 74 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

Delhi High Court29 Sept 2026

For revenue

Dhruv Medicos (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner

Where petitioner distributor of medicines challenged show cause notice and appropriation of amount deposited during audit on grounds of coercion, limitation, computation, and jurisdiction, since statutory adjudication had commenced and SCN did not finally determine liability, all objections including voluntariness of payment and other contentions could be raised before Adjudicating Authority and interference at SCN stage was unwarranted

Delhi High Court25 Sept 2026

For revenue

Jaiwanti v. Union of India

Where SCN and penalty proceedings were initiated against legal representative of deceased alleged to have fraudulently availed ITC and IGST refunds, in view of fact that section 93 permitted post-death determination of tax, interest and penalty liability accruing to extent of deceased's estate, investigation and recovery actions were jurisdictionally valid against legal heirs. GST: Where department, after assessee's death, proceeded against legal representative for tax penalty based on alleged fraudulent refunds by deceased, while provisions of section 93(1)(b) was challenged under Article 14 as arbitrary and denying defence, since liability was limited to estate of deceased, representative was not deemed to be a wrongdoer, particularly when effective hearing and appeal safeguards existed; thus, constitutional challenge to Section 93(1)(b) was untenable and was rejected. GST: Amount seized during search could not be retained indefinitely merely on alleged voluntary deposit; Department was required to establish lawful basis for retention/appropriation, furnish complete account of principal and FD interest, and release any amount lacking statutory basis with interest actually earned after reasoned adjudication

Allahabad High Court17 Sept 2026

For revenue

Rizvi Builders and Supplier v. State of U.P

Where assessee paid entire tax voluntarily after notice alleging evasion and without demur, acceptance of liability confirmed all terms and allegations in notice, thus assessee remained liable to equal penalty and interest as per Section 74, subsequent show cause notices only computed sums, and voluntary deposit did not absolve penalty or interest, so writ petition challenging demand was not tenable

Related rulings

Delhi High Court29 Sept 2026

For revenue

Venspra Impex v. Deputy Commissioner ST

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Venspra Impex v. Deputy Commissioner ST

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Dhruv Medicos (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner

Jaiwanti v. Union of India

Rizvi Builders and Supplier v. State of U.P

Read the full analysis