High Courts
Rulings of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, newest first.
26 rulings
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where registered taxpayer supplying works contract services to Government Departments was subjected to a single composite assessment order covering multiple years, such composite assessment was impermissible, so the impugned summary order was set aside and respondents could initiate fresh proceedings for each assessment year separately, with all consequential proceedings revoked
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where GST-registered assessee dealing in handloom sarees was subjected to a single composite summary assessment order covering multiple tax periods, such an order was not sustainable since a composite assessment across years is invalid, and fresh proceedings must be initiated separately for each assessment year
Andhra Pradesh High Court
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
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where GST-registered trader was subjected to a composite assessment order imposing 100 percent penalty covering multiple tax periods through a single order, such composite assessment was unsustainable as statutory scheme requires separate period-wise orders, and allowing composite orders impairs statutory rights of appeal and renders legislative provisions otiose, thus impugned order was set aside
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where GST-registered dealer trading in computers and related goods was issued a single show cause notice and composite assessment order covering multiple tax periods, such composite proceedings were unsustainable since law prohibits issuance of a single notice or order for more than one tax period, resulting in setting aside of impugned composite order
Andhra Pradesh High Court
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completed under Section 62, but subsequently filed the return with late fee and interest, assessment order was deemed withdrawn as per Section 62(2) and consequential proceedings were revoked, though liability for interest and late fee remained
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where a registered firm challenged a single composite assessment order covering multiple periods without separate orders for each period, such composite order was set aside on this ground alone, allowing respondents to initiate fresh proceedings for each period separately if so advised
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where tax determination proceedings for several periods were concluded by a single composite assessment order, such composite order was impermissible under GST law and accordingly set aside, with authorities permitted to issue separate period-wise orders after providing due opportunity and all consequential proceedings revoked
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where registered dealer availed input tax credit for FY 2018-19 through GSTR- 3B on 20.12.2019, and initial rejection was due to deadline of 20.10.2019, subsequent statutory relaxation after introduction of section 16(5) extended window to 30.11.2021, making dealer's availment timely and order for reversal unsustainable
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where registered firm was assessed for multiple financial years under a single composite order in proceedings alleging fraud under Section 74, such order was invalid as each tax period requires separate adjudication, so composite order was unsustainable and impugned order was set aside with liberty to issue separate orders for each period in accordance with law
Andhra Pradesh High Court
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
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where registered manufacturer of bakery and confectionery products was subjected to a single composite assessment order for multiple tax periods from 2019 to 2022, issuance of a composite order covering more than one tax period was found impermissible, rendering such order invalid and liable to be set aside, and writ petition challenging composite order was allowed
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where assessment order was passed against proprietary concern after proprietor's death, with no mandatory personal hearing to legal heirs and widow being unaware of proceedings, such order was void ab initio and lacked legal efficacy, and consequent appellate rejection as time-barred could not stand, entitling quashment of all impugned proceedings and endorsements
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where assessee challenged summary assessment order lacking both signature of Assessing Officer and Document Identification Number, such procedural defects were found not curable under sections 160 or 169, and signature on assessment order was mandatory, rendering impugned unsigned assessment order inherently invalid and liable to be set aside
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where partnership firm engaged in works contract services was issued a composite Order-in-Original and Summary in Form GST DRC-07 for two financial years without separate notices for each tax period, such orders covering multiple tax periods were invalid in law and were set aside, as separate adjudications for each period are required under GST law
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where assessment order was issued and uploaded without mandatory Document Identification Number despite CBIC circular, such omission rendered order non-est and invalid, and uploading on portal could not cure defect, making assessment liable to be set aside with liberty for fresh assessment after due notice and DIN assignment
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where assessee’s reply to Section 74 SCN was not considered and mandatory hearing under Section 75(4) was not granted, same vitiated DRC-07 assessment; as hearing was required where adverse decision was contemplated, order and consequential proceedings were unsustainable and were to be quashed. GST: Violation of natural justice and failure to grant mandatory hearing under Section 75(4) rendered assessment under Section 74 legally unsustainable; consequently, endorsement rejecting statutory appeal as time-barred could not survive, and assessment with all consequential proceedings was to be set aside
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where a composite assessment order covering multiple tax periods was passed against a partnership firm providing works contract services to Government departments without issuing period-wise separate orders, such composite order was invalid and set aside, with liberty granted to initiate fresh proceedings through separate notices for each period in accordance with law
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where assessee was subjected to assessment for multiple tax periods and a common assessment order was passed clubbing separate periods under both CGST and APGST, such composite order was not sustainable and was liable to be set aside, requiring fresh proceedings period-wise in accordance with law
Andhra Pradesh High Court
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