M/S. K Sandeep Naidu vs. The Assistant Commissioner (State Tax)

Petitioner, a proprietorship concern registered under the provisions of A.P.G.S.T. Act., is engaged in execution of civil works predominantly for Government Departments and Establishments. Aggrieved by assessment order dated 11.11.2024 passed by the 1st respondent for the tax period 2023- 24 and the consequential proceedings initiated pursuant to the said order, petitioner filed the present writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that filing of returns maintenance and custody of GST portal login credentials and the correspondence with the department was being exclusively handled by petitioner’s Chartered Accountant and even email address was also in the name of petitioner’s Chartered Accountant, including mobile number. He submits that petitioner came to know about the impugned order only on receipt of intimation of coercive action of recovery and freezing of petitioner’s bank account and the petitioner was completely unaware of the proceedings

On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader made submissions to the effect that petitioner filed writ petition belatedly and in fact the same is not maintainable, more particularly, as the petitioner failed to avail the remedy of appeal.

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

In the light of specific averments made in the affidavit to the effect that there is non-communication of proceedings initiated against the petitioner by its authorized representative, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition for the reasons alike in W.P.No.9586 of 2026. 7. This Court in the said decision had taken note of the practical difficulties that arose on account of the introduction of the GST regime and the introduction of the online mechanism, under this regime, for the administration of tax collection, etc and opined that in view the hardships that are being faced by various registered persons, especially in cases where the orders suffer from patent irregularities, the impugned orders of assessment would have to be set aside. The relevant portion of the said decision reads as follows:

In view of the above stated position, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer for passing fresh assessment order, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

This Order is however, subject to the condition of petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax, within a period of six (6) weeks, from today.

Needless to say, the period from the date of filling of this writ petition till the date of receipt of this order by the Assessing Officer, shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation and all issues are left open to be raised by the petitioner before the Assessing Officer.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.