Paramathmuni Venkata Satyanarayana vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following Order:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.A.V.Sai Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Tax representing respondent Nos.3 to 5. 2. With the consent of learned counsel on both sides, this Writ Petition is being disposed of, at the stage of admission.
Challenging the Assessment Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 06.01.2025 passed by respondent No.3 for the tax period 2022-2023, present writ petition is filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions to the effect that the petitioner, who is engaged in the business of manual works-contract, is not conversant with the operation of the GST Back-Office Portal and issuance of separate show cause notice dated 04.12.2024 before passing the impugned order, therefore, was not within the petitioner’s knowledge. He further submits that respondent No.3 has not afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as mandated under Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short “the Act”) and on that ground alone, writ petition is liable to be allowed.
That apart, referring to the material filed along with the writ petition i.e., Assessment Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 06.01.2025, he submits that the concerned officer has not affixed his signature on the said order, it is without DIN, as such, lacks legal efficacy. He also relies on the decision of this Court in SRK Enterprises reported in (2023) 13 Centax 60 (A.P.) in (W.P No.29397 of 2023 dated 10.11.2023). He further submits that petitioner, even on merits, has a good case, hence, urges for allowing the writ petition.
On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader refutes the contention insofar as following the procedure contemplated under Rule 142(1A) of the Central Rules i.e., with regard to issuance of notice prior to finalizing the assessment and states that in fact, opportunity of personal hearing was also afforded to the petitioner on two occasions i.e., 26.12.2024 and 02.01.2025. He also submits that the petitioner having received the notice failed to submit reply and Assessment Order was passed long back i.e., on 06.01.2025, no explanation is forth coming as to the delay in filing of the present writ petition. Further that petitioner has a remedy of appeal and instead of availing the same, he filed present writ petition and the same cannot be entertained.
We have considered the submissions made and perused material on record.
At the outset, it may be appropriate to mention that though learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even on merits, petitioner has got a good case, we are not inclined to examine the same more particularly, in view of the plea raised inter alia that the Assessment Order passed by respondent No.3 for tax period i.e., 2022-2023 is unsigned.
Though learned Assistant Government Pleader, on oral instructions, has submitted that a prior notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the Assessment Order in question, at this stage, we deem it not necessary to examine the matter by inviting counter-affidavit. On a perusal of the material on record, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned Assessment Order dated 06.01.2025 is unsigned merits acceptance. Be that as it may.
In similar circumstances, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P No.29397 of 2023 vide order dated 10.11.2023 held as follows:
“13. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in part, on the ground that the order does not contain the signatures. The impugned order is set aside with direction to the Competent Authority to pass fresh order in accordance with law considering the petitioner’s reply already filed as also the additional reply, if so filed, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner within the aforesaid period with respect to the alleged new ground.
The entire exercise be completed preferably within a period of six (06) weeks from today.”
In the light of the above cited decision and for the reasons alike, the petitioner is entitled for relief.
However in the light of the submission that Assessment Order is passed in the year 2025, we are inclined to incorporate a condition. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax, within a period of four (04) weeks from today. On such deposit, the proper officer shall issue appropriate notice and finalize the assessment after giving adequate opportunity including opportunity of being heard, in accordance with law.
In default of the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax within the stipulated time, it is open for the respondents to proceed in the matter in accordance with law.
Writ Petition is accordingly disposed off.
Needless to observe that amounts, if any, already deposited shall be given credit to. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
_____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Date:28.07.2026 Ksj
Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.