BharatTaxGST

Srinivasa Rao Bojanki vs. The Commissioner Of Appeals

Original PDF →
WP/10513/2026HC Andhra PradeshGSTCNR APHC01001899202605 May 2026Bench: R RAGHUNANDAN RAO,T.C.D.SEKHAR5 pages
For Petitioner: M V J K KUMARFor Respondent: P S P SURESH KUMAR

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
1 APHC010018992026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 10513/2026 Between: 1. SRINIVASA RAO BOJANKI, 3-142, K.R. PETA, VEPADA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.- 535204 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF APPEALS, CENTRAL TAX GUNTUR CGST COMMISSIONER ATE C.R. BUILDING ANDHRA PRADESH. 522004 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, O/O. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM CENTRAL GST COMMISSIONERATE, GST BHAWAN, PORT AREA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH.530035 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT, VIZIANAGARAM SOUTH RANGE, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH.530035 4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI-110001. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent in 2 demanding to pay the amount raised in the adjudication order serving or with receipt of the order in appeal from the office of 3rd Respondent by any of the modes prescribed in Section 83 of Finance Act 1994 and pressurizing the Petitioner the Order in Appeal passed by the 1st Respondent to the Petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, improper, unjust, unfair, contrary to the principles of natura justice, without authority of law and jurisdiction violative of the provisions of Finance Act 1994 as also violative of Article 14, 19(l)(g), 21, 265 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently to refrain the 3rd respondent from demanding the amount orally till the service of Order in appeal and grant such other relief or reliefs and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to condone the delay in representing of 77 days in representing the writ petition, the Petitioner would suffer severe loss and hardship. IA NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased refrain the 3rd Respondent not to demand the amount from the Petitioner either orally or in any other manner. Pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M V J K KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P S P SURESH KUMAR 3

The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

Heard Sri MVJK. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.S.P. Kumar learned counsel for the respondents.

2.

The petitioner has been served with an order of adjudication, under the Finance Act, 1994, dated 31.03.2023, for the period 2015-16 and 2016-17. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is said to have file an appeal before the 1st respondent. The petitioner has now approached this court, by way of the present Writ Petition contending that the petitioner was not being informed about the fate of this appeal while steps are being taken to coercively recover the service tax and other amounts, levied under the original order dated 31.03.2023. 3. Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, the learned standing counsel, on written instructions, submits that an order has already been passed in the appeal on 06.12.2023, dismissing the appeal. The learned standing counsel would also submit that the petitioner had not approached the authorities for taking a copy of the appellate order and as such the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted and the writ would not be maintainable.

4.

Any order passed against a person, which would adversely affect the interest of the persons, would be required to be served on such a person. This would be for the purposes of enabling the affected person to invoke his remedies available under law.

4

5.

In the present case, it appears that no such service of the impugned appellate order has been affected on the petitioner.

6.

In such circumstances, if coercive process being initiated against the petitioner, for recovery of dues, would not be sustainable until and unless a copy of the said order is served on the petitioner.

7.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to serve a copy of the order in appeal, dated 06.12.2023, within a period of Six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Upon such order being served, it would be open to the petitioner to avail of his remedies under the Finance Act, 1994. Limitation for any appeal filed by the petitioner would be from the date of service of the appellate order by the 1st respondent, on the petitioner.

8.

It is also made clear that no coercive steps can be taken against the petitioner without a period of eight (8) weeks elapsing from the date of service of the appellate order on the petitioner by the 1st respondent.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

____________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J

RJS

5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

WRIT PETITION NO: 10513/2026 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)

06.05.

2026 RJS

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.