Andhra Pradesh High Court Monthly Digest: January 2026

[CITATIONS: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 1-2026 LiveLaw (AP) 16]NOMINAL INDEXGanpati Ispat v. Union of India: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 1 M/s Amnos Evangelical v. The Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 2M/s. Sunrise & Engineering Industries vs. Hindustan Shipyard Limited & Anr. (and connected matters): 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 3P RASHIDULLA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH and Anr.: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 4The State of Andhra Pradesh v. U.J.Narasimhulu: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 5T Bali Reddy (Died) & Ors v. Prl Secretary Revenue Dept & Ors.: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 6Chukkapalli Ramakrishna Prasad v. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer & Ors: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 7P.PRIYAVARDHANA BABU v. TIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAMS: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 8Kanduru Chinnappanna v. The State of Andhra Pradesh: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 9Andhra Lawyers Association and Ors V. The Bar Council of India and another: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 10Bora Narayanamma v. Union of India & Others: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 11D.VENKATESWARAMMA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 12Atlapakala Rama Krishna v. Government of Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 13A. SRIRANGAM DORA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 14GUMMADI USHA RANI v. SURE MALLIKARJUNA RAO: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 15V.Rabbani Basha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 16Final Orders/JudgmentsNotification Defining Jurisdiction Does Not Automatically Empower All Officers To Invoke S. 122 CGST Act: AP High CourtCase Title: Ganpati Ispat v. Union of IndiaCase Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 31263/2025Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 1The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a notification merely defining or fixing the territorial jurisdiction of officers cannot be construed as conferring the power to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 122 of the CGST Act.Section 122 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 is the primary provision defining various GST-related offences and the specific monetary penalties applicable to them.Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar examined whether Notification No.2/2017-Central Tax dated 19.06.2017 conferred power on any authority or officer to initiate or conduct proceedings under Section 122 of the CGST Act.Income Tax | Delay in Filing Form 10-B Due To COVID Cannot Deny S.11 Exemption: Andhra Pradesh High CourtCase Title: M/s Amnos Evangelical v. The Centralized Processing Centre, BengaluruCase Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 8798 OF 2025Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 2The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied merely on account of delay in filing the Form 10-B Audit Report when such delay was caused by the COVID-19 Pandemic.Justices Battu Devanand and A. Hari Haranadha Sarma observed that the assessee is a religious and charitable society and has to comply with the instructions issued by the Income Tax Department through their letter. Due to the Covid-19 Pandemic, the assessee could not attend the letter issued by the Department and the documents sought by the Department were not furnished within the stipulated time.AP High Court Restores Arbitral Awards In Hindustan Shipyard Case; Says Arbitrators Can Modulate 'Exorbitant' Liquidated DamagesCase Title: M/s. Sunrise & Engineering Industries vs. Hindustan Shipyard Limited & Anr. (and connected matters)Case Number: C.M.A. No. 234 of 2025 & batchCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 3The High Court of Andhra Pradesh recently set aside a Trial Court's order that had earlier quashed thirteen arbitral awards against Hindustan Shipyard Limited (HSL) and its subcontractors.On 31st December 2025, the Division Bench comprising Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and T.C.D. Sekhar, upholding the arbitral awards, stated that an arbitrator has the jurisdiction to modulate liquidated damages if they are found to be exorbitant or if the delay is attributable to both parties, and noted that “the question of application of the clause for liquidated damages, without modification, would not arise”.Theft Worth Below ₹5,000 Is Non-Cognizable Offence Under BNS; Police Can't Register FIR Without Magistrate's Permission: AP High CourtCase Title: P RASHIDULLA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH and Anr.Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION No.10465 of 2025Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 4The Andhra Pradesh High Court has emphasised that theft of property worth below ₹5,000 is a non-cognizable offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and the police authorities cannot register an FIR with respect to the same without the Magistrate's prior permission.In this regard, Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa stated,“There is no doubt that the offence under Section 303(2) BNS is a non-cognizable offence. In such circumstances, the police shall follow procedure laid down under Section 174 of Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, which mandates the police to obtain appropriate direction from the concerned Magistrate, to proceed with investigation.”Seniority Not Carried Forward For Police Constables...

Andhra Pradesh High Court Monthly Digest: January 2026

Saahas Arora

Tags