The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati has dismissed a writ petition filed by a joint venture firm challenging a GST assessment order after a delay of nearly two and a half years. The Court ruled that it cannot exercise its writ jurisdiction to reopen an order that has already attained finality under the statutory framework, especially when the laches (delays) remain unexplained to the satisfaction of the Court.
Background of the Case
M/s. AKR Coastal JV (the Petitioner) filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in December 2025. The petition challenged an assessment order dated February 27, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), Kavali Circle, under Section 73 of the State Goods and Services Tax Act and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the financial year 2020-21.
Under Section 107 of the Act, the assessment order was appealable within a prescribed limitation period of three months. In case of delay, the appellate authority had the power to condone a delay of only one month upon being satisfied with the cause shown. In this case, the total period of limitation, including the condonable period, expired in June 2023 without any appeal being filed.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner attempted to explain the laches by stating that one of its Joint Venture (J.V.) partners had been declared insolvent by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and was under liquidation. Furthermore, insolvency proceedings were pending against another J.V. partner before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Chennai, where a stay had been granted.
The petitioner also argued that due to these litigations and financial difficulties arising from the non-payment of full bill amounts and GST by government contractees, several employees, including the accountant handling its tax affairs, had left the company. Consequently, the petitioner claimed it could not take timely steps to challenge the order.
The petitioner approached the High Court only after the first respondent initiated coercive recovery steps by issuing a Garnishee Notice on September 16, 2025, to the Executive Engineer, Nellore Central Division, for the recovery of disputed tax, interest, and penalties.
Court’s Analysis
A Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam analyzed the petitioner’s explanation and found it lacking in specific details and dates.
The Court observed:
“The aforesaid explanation is without specifications. Even the dates have not been mentioned. The cause stated, in our view cannot said to be coming in the way of filing the appeal to challenge the impugned order. Even as per the explanation some other legal proceedings before appellate tribunal were taken. Then, the petitioner could certainly have taken legal recourse against the impugned order as well.”
Rejecting the petitioner’s justification for the delay, the Court further stated:
“The explanation does not inspire confidence into its genuineness or correctness. It does not amount to sufficient cause. The writ petition has been filed after almost two and half years of the order, which attained the finality under the statute. Laches are unexplained to the satisfaction of the Court.”
To underscore its reasoning regarding the finality of statutory orders, the High Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Neelima Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2021) 17 SCC 693], extracting Paragraph 35 of the decision:
“35. Thus, it is very well-settled that it is not permissible for the parties to reopen the concluded judgments of the court as the same may not only tantamount to an abuse of the process of the court but would have far-reaching adverse effect on the administration of justice.”
Applying this principle, the Court firmly held:
“We, cannot in the exercise of writ jurisdiction, permit reopening of the matter for an order which attained finality long back under the statute.”
Decision
The High Court concluded that it was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The Writ Petition was dismissed with no order as to costs, and all pending interlocutory applications were directed to stand closed.
- Case Title: M/s. AKR Coastal JV vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), Kavali Circle and 3 others
- Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 35116 OF 2025
