Allowed¶38

Sreekanth Reddy Mukka v. Deputy Assistant Commissioner

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Jul 2026WP/16476/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 62 GST Act; Section 62(2); deemed withdrawal of assessment order; Form GSTR 3B; late fee; exempted turnover; recovery of tax barred; immovable property attachment set aside; Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; W.P.No.16476 of 2026; followed Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) W.P.(MD) No.18740 of 2024 and APHC W.P.No.20705 of 2025 (M/s. Brothers Engineering and Errectors Limited Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh); coram Ninala Jayasurya and T.C.D. Sekhar; decided 13.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

Impugned assessment orders under Section 62 deemed withdrawn; recovery of taxes and dues barred; immovable property attachments, if any, set aside; no costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶38

Sreekanth Reddy Mukka Vs Deputy Assistant… — GST and Indirect Tax | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010315162026

¶2

[3543]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

MONDAY, THE 13^th DAY OF JULY 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 16476/2026

¶10

Between:

¶11

SREEKANTH REDDY MUKKA, (REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR) 22, MUKKAVARAIPALLI, OBULAVARUPALLI, KADAPA, YSR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 516108

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, (ST-1), RAYCHOTI CIRCLE, KADAPA DIVISION, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶15

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STII, KADAPA-LL CIRCLE, KADAPA DIVISION, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶16

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY (REVENUE), SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, ANDHRA PRADESH52228

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶18

1.Y SREENIVASA REDDY

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶20

1.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

¶21

NJS,J & TCDS,J W.P No.16476 of 2026

¶22

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

¶25

Writ Petition No:16476 of 2026

¶26

The Court made the following Order: (per NJS,J)

¶27

The petitioner was served with order of assessments for the month of June, 2024 to October, 2024. The Assessment Orders had been passed under Section 62 of the GST Act on the ground that the petitioner had not been filing its returns.

¶28

Petitioner has approached this Court with the contention that the respondents are seeking to recover the amount demanded under the said order of assessments despite the fact that the petitioner had filed its returns, in Form GSTR 3B for the relevant periods along with late fee. It is contended that no tax or interest was payable as the returns related to exempted turnovers.

¶29

The details of the date of demand order, date of filing of returns etc., are set out in the table below:

¶30

Month	Date of impugned Demand Order	Date of filing of Form GSTR 3B	CGST late fee u/s 62(2)	SGST Late fees u/s. 62(2)
June-2024	17.08.2024	17.09.2024	0.00	0.00
July-2024	12.09.2024	17.09.2024	250.00	250.00
August-2024	15.10.2024	07.01.2026	250.00	250.00
September- 2024	15.11.2024	07.01.2026	250.00	250.00
October-2024	16.12.2024	07.01.2026	250.00	250.00
			1000.00	1000.00

¶31

Section 62(2) of the GST Act stipulates that any order passed under Section 62, would be deemed to have been withdrawn once necessary returns are filed within the period stipulated under the said provision. In the event of

¶32

NJS,J & TCDS,J W.P No.16476 of 2026

¶33

¶34

delay, late fee is required to be paid by the registered person who seeks to file the said returns.

¶35

In the present case, petitioner is said to have paid the necessary late fee. In such circumstances, it would have to be deemed that the orders, detailed above, passed under Section 62 of the GST Act are deemed to have been withdrawn.

¶36

Further, similar issue has fallen for consideration before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench) in Writ Petition (MD) No.18740 of 2024 and after considering the same, the High Court of Madras had held that in view of the amendment to Section 62(2) of the Act, it would be appropriate to condone the delay in filing GSTR 3-B returns and consequently the Assessment Order would have to be deemed to be withdrawn.

¶37

Further, this Court following the judgment rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Madras, allowed W.P.No.20705 of 2025 filed by M/s. Brothers Engineering and Errectors Limited Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. In such circumstances, the benefit under Section 62(2) of the Act has to be extended to the petitioner as well.

¶38

Accordingly, Writ Petition is allowed. Assessment Orders under challenge passed under Section 62 of the Act are deemed to have been withdrawn and no steps for recovery can be initiated or continued for recovery of the taxes and dues raised under the said orders of assessment. Further, immovable property attachments, if any, caused under the aforesaid orders of assessment, shall stand set aside. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶39

__________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶40

_____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

¶41

Date:13.07.2026 Ksj

Sreekanth Reddy Mukka v. Deputy Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreekanth Reddy Mukka v. Deputy Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalitha Parameshwari Stone Crusher Bhanumukkala Villages Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Rangarao Guntupalli Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax

M/S. Nandini Garden Restaurant, Chittoor Dist. Vs C.T.O. Chittoor Dist. & Another

Balijalapalli Upendra Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

R K Gold Vs the Superintendent of Central Tax

M/S. Sri Satyanarayana Oil & Rice Mill. Vs the Commercial Tax Officer, Gudivasa, & Another