R K Gold Vs the Superintendent of Central Tax

R K GOLD, GSTIN-37CAJPS9905F1Z7, REP. BY ITS PROP.PANCHUMARTHISUBBRAO, SHOP NO. 2, 27-32-21, MAHENDRA COMPLEX, DUNNAVARI STREET, GOVERNORPET, VIJAYAWADA - 520002, (A.P.).

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX, 0/0 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX, KRISHNA LANKA CGST RANGE, C.R. BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, VIJAYAWADA - 520 002.

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, GUNTUR, CGST COMMISSIONERATE, GUNTUR.

¶16

THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY FINANCE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110001

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶19

1.SREE RAMA KRISHNA KUMAR POTTURI

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶21

¶22

NJS,J & TCDS,J W.P No.18669 of 2026

¶23

2

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

¶25

Writ Petition No:18669 of 2026

¶26

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

¶27

Heard Mr. Dantu Srinivas, learned arguing counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Santhi Chandra, learned Senior Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶28

With the consent of learned counsel on both sides, writ petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission.

¶29

Petitioner a proprietary concern, aggrieved by the Order-in-Original No.02/2025-26-GST(Supdt) dated 09.12.2025 filed the present writ petition on various grounds.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that before passing the order in question, a show cause notice dated 20.06.2025 was issued to the petitioner under Section 74 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 alleging that petitioner, during the period from November, 2018 to September, 2019, has availed input tax credit on the basis of fake tax invoices. He submits that to the said show cause notice, petitioner submitted its reply dated 18.11.2025 denying the allegations therein. However, he submits that impugned order has been passed even without affording an opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses examined on behalf of the department, as such impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of

¶31

NJS,J & TCDS,J W.P No.18669 of 2026

¶32

3

¶33

principles of natural justice. Assessment period in respect of November-2018 was expired on 31.12.2024, that after expiry of five years of statutory limit, the impugned order was passed on 09.12.2025. He also contends that since the impugned order covers the tax period from November, 2018 to September, 2019, the same is not sustainable, in the light of the decision rendered by this Court in S J Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner & ors. (W.P No.11028 of 2025) dated 17.09.2025. Making the said submissions, learned counsel seeks to allow the writ petition.

¶34

On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel representing the Department while refuting the said contentions sought to sustain the impugned order. Her submission is that the petitioner instead of availing the remedy of appeal had straightaway filed the present writ petition and the same is not maintainable. However, she has not disputed the decision rendered by this Court in S J Constructions (referred to supra).

¶35

We have considered the submissions made and perused material on record.

¶36

Though several contentions were raised in the writ petition, this Court feels it not necessary to examine the same in detail. Suffice to state that impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that the same is a composite order covering the tax periods November, 2018 to September, 2019.

¶37

NJS,J & TCDS,J W.P No.18669 of 2026

¶38

4

¶39

In W.P No.11028 of 2025 & batch, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.09.2025 held as follows:

¶40

“17. Section 74(3) is in parimateria with Section 73(3). However, sub- section (4) of Section 74 does not contain the term “such tax period”. This non mention would not, in our opinion, make any difference to the aforesaid interpretation. Apart from this, there are certain other provisions, which would also have to be considered. Any interpretation of an Act should not result in some of the other provisions becoming otiose or reduced in scope. As rightly pointed out by the Hon’ble High Court at Madras, the right of a registered person to obtain benefit under Section 128 of APGST Act as well as the right to invoke the remedy of appeal against the orders of assessment either under Section 73 or under Section 74 would get impacted if a common order is permitted to be issued in relation to more than one assessment / financial year.

¶41

In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that a single show cause notice or a single composite assessment order cannot be passed in relation to more than one tax period of either a month if the assessment is taken up before the due date for filing of the annual return or for more than one year if the due date for filing of annual return has been reached.”

¶42

In the light of the above cited decision and for reasons alike, the impugned order is set aside. Writ Petition is allowed.

¶43

Needless to observe that the concerned Assessing Officer at liberty to issue separate notices in respect of relevant tax periods and proceed with the assessments in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the

¶44

NJS,J & TCDS,J W.P No.18669 of 2026

¶45

5

¶46

petitioner. On receipt of such notices, it is open to the petitioner to raise all the contentions including those which are raised in the present writ petition.

¶47

Further, the period from the date of passing of the impugned order till the date of receipt of this order shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶48

__________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶49

_____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

¶50

Date:13.07.2026 Ksj

R K Gold v. the Superintendent of Central Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R K Gold v. the Superintendent of Central Tax

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

Sreekanth Reddy Mukka Vs Deputy Assistant Commissioner

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