Shri Pilli Murali Mohan Raju Vs the Assistant Commissioner St

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA 2 DIVISION D.NO.74-2-20, 2ND FLOOR, KMR SONS PLAZA, KRISHNA NAGAR, YANAMALAKUDURUROAD, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 520 007.

¶15

THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA 2 DIVISION D.NO.74-2-20, 2ND FLOOR, KMR SONS PLAZA, KRISHNA NAGAR, YANAMALAKUDURU ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 520 007.

¶16

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT (COMMERCIAL TAX) A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELEGAPUDI - 522 238.

¶17

UNION OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (REVENUE), NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶18

THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU BUILDING, CANAL ROAD,

¶19

2

¶20

VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH - 520 001.

¶21

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶22

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toPleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order holding the proceedings of the 1st Respondent in the Single and Composite Assessment Order passed dated 31.12.2025 for a period of four years from FY 2021-22 to FY 2024-25, without affixing DIN/RFN, Personal Hearing provided before filing the reply to the notice, as being arbitrary, wholly without jurisdiction, unconstitutional, unreasonable, against the principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the COST Act, 2017 and the rules made thereunder St B. Consequently, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order quashing the proceedings of the 1st Respondent in Notice dated 19.06.2026 issued to Vijayawada Municipal Corporation (5th Respondent) for withholding the payments and directing the 5th Respondent to release the payments due to the Petitioner C. And to pass

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.ANIL KUMAR BEZAWADA

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

¶27

Mr. S.V.S.S.SIVA RAM, (SC FOR VMC)

¶28

The Court made the following:

¶29

3

¶30

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

¶31

WRIT PETITION No: 19192 of 2026

¶32

ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya)

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.M. Venkata Krishna Rao, learned Government Pleader representing respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr.S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No.5. With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶34

Petitioner is a Proprietor engaged in the business of providing construction services to the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation and an assesse on the rolls of respondent No.1 with GSTIN No.37AIYPP0391F1ZQ. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 31.12.2025 passed by the 1^st respondent, the present writ petition is filed.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to various averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, inter alia contends that the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent for the tax period 2021-22 to 2024-25 covering multiple tax periods is impermissible in Law under the provisions of Central Goods and Service Tax Act. He also placed reliance on the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.J. Constructions v.

¶36

The Assistant Commissioner & Others (W.P No.11028 of 2025 & batch), dated 17.09.2025, wherein, it was held as follows:

¶37

4

¶38

“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.

¶39

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.”

¶40

Learned Government Pleader has not disputed the legal position, much less the factual aspects with regard to passing of composite order impugned in the writ petition.

¶41

In view of the factual and legal position, the impugned proceedings dated 31.12.2025 are set aside. However, the 1^st respondent is at liberty to issue separate notices for each assessment year and proceed with the assessments in respect of tax periods in question, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, in accordance with Law.

¶42

5

¶43

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.

¶44