Koppula Madhusekhar vs. The Assistant Commissioner(St)

Petitioner, a proprietorship firm registered under Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short “the Act”) with GSTIN:37ASKPK7343L1z6, is engaged in the business of execution of contract works entrusted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, aggrieved by common Assessment Order dated 28.08.2024 filed the present writ petition on various grounds.

Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the various averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, made submissions inter alia that the order of respondent No.1 covering tax period for the Assessment Year i.e., 2019-2020 is not sustainable, in the light of the Commissioner & ors. (W.P No.11028 of 2025) dated 17.09.2025. He further submits that respondent No.1 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., Summary Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 28.08.2024, he submits that the concerned officer has not affixed his signature on the said orders, 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 also 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. He also submits that the petitioner having received the notice failed to submit reply and Assessment Order was passed long back i.e., on 28.08.2024, 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. However, he has not disputed the decision rendered by this Court in S J Constructions (referred to supra).

This Court has 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, since writ petition is otherwise deserves to be allowed on the ground of unsigned Assessment Order by respondent No.1 and as the same is a composite order covering the tax periods 2019-2020. 9. In W.P No.11028 of 2025 & batch, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.09.2025 held as follows:

In W.P No.29397 of 2023, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.11.2023 held as follows:

In the light of the above cited decisions and for reasons alike, the impugned order is set aside. Writ Petition is allowed, as indicated above.

Needless to observe that respondent No.1 is at liberty to issue separate notices in respect of relevant tax periods and proceed with the assessments in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to the petitioner. However in the light of the submission that Assessment Order is passed in the year 2024, we deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to deposit 20% of the disputed tax, within a period of four (04) weeks from today.

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. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.