Avanti Feeds Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax - Andhra Pradesh High Court, 31 March 2026

1 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.11760 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

*** WRIT PETITION NO: 11760/2023

Between:

AVANTI FEEDS LIMITED, HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT G- 2, CONCORDE APARTMENTS, H. NO. 6-3-658, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD- 500082. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. C. RAMACHANDRA RAO, JOINT MANAGING DIRECTOR

MR. A. INDRA KUMAR,, S/O (LATE) A. VENKATESHWAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, AVANTI FEEDS LIMITED, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT.G-2, CONCORDE APARTMENTS, H. NO. 6-3-658, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD- 500082. ...PETITIONER(S) AND $1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (ST), SPECIAL CIRCLE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM DIVISION, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, OFFICER OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF STATETAX, DOOR NO. 12-468-4, ADJACENT TO NH-16, SERVICE ROAD, KUNCHANAPALLY, GUNTUR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH - 522501. 3. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110001

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (CT) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

2 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.11760 of 2023

Date of Judgment pronounced on : 01-04-2026

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

Whether Reporters of Local newspapers

: Yes/No May be allowed to see the judgments?

Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes/No to Law Reporters/Journals:

Whether the Lordship wishes to see the fair copy : Yes/No of the Judgment?

3 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.11760 of 2023

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO *THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

+ WRIT PETITION No.11760 of 2023

% Dated: 01-04-2026 Between:

4 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.11760 of 2023

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (CT) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

! Counsel for the Petitioner :Sri K. Vivek Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Vimal Varma Vasi Reddy

^Counsel for Respondents :The earned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes

<GIST :

>HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred: 1 (2021) 95 GSTR 131:2021 SCC Online mad 13910 2 2025 AHC 143407 3 (1998) 8 SCC page 1 4 (2022) 10 SCC 700:(2022) 101 GSTR 262:2022 SCC online SC 657 5 (2023) 156 taxmann.com 448 (Kerala) 6 MANU/SC/0430/2004: AIR 2004 SC 2321 7 MANU/AP/1501/2025

5 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.11760 of 2023

APHC010223782023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Juri iction) [3529] WEDNE AY,THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 11760/2023 Between:

MR. A. INDRA KUMAR,, S/O (LATE) A. VENKATESHWAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, AVANTI FEEDS LIMITED, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT.G-2, CONCORDE APARTMENTS, H. NO. 6-3-658, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD- 500082. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (ST), SPECIAL CIRCLE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM DIVISION, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110001

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (CT) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

...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, Direction or Order, particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, a.Call for the records pertaining to the Impugned Notice dated 10 April 2023 bearing Case ID AD371122002279F, issued by Respondent No.1 under Section 73(5) of the AP GST Act and quash the same b.Declare that the Impugned Circular No. 80/54/2018 dated 31 December 2018 issued by the Tax Research Unit, Department of Revenue, under the Respondent No.3, is invalid as it has already been set aside by the Honourable Madras High Court in Jenefa India v. UOI (Judgment dated 5 October 2021 in WP No. (MD) No. 16770 to 16776 of 2019), and cannot be relied upon by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the Impugned Notice dated 10 April 2023 bearing Case ID AD371122002279F, issued by Respondent No.1 under Section 73(5) of the AP GST Act and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 dispense with the requirement of filing the certified copies of 1) Impugned Notice dated 10 April 2023 bearing Case ID AD371122002279F, issued by Respondent No.1 under Section 73(5) of the AP GST Act and 2) Impugned Circular No. 80/54/2018 dated 31 December 2018 issued by the Tax Research Unit, Department of Revenue, under the Respondent No.3, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2023 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 suspend the Impugned Notice dated 10 April 2023 bearing Case

7 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.11760 of 2023

ID AD371122002279F, issued by Respondent No.1 under Section 73(5) of the AP GST Act pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass IA NO: 3 OF 2023 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 stay all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned Notice dated 10 April 2023 bearing Case ID AD371122002279F, issued by Respondent No.1 pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pas IA NO: 4 OF 2023 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 Suspend the Operation of the Impugned Circular No. 80/54/2018 dated 31 December 2018, issued by the Tax Research Unit, Department of Revenue, under the Respondent No.3 pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass IA NO: 5 OF 2023 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 direct Respondent No.1 not to take any coercive steps in relation to the Impugned Notice dated 10 April 2023 bearing Case ID AD371122002279F, issued by Respondent No.1 pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 vacate the interim orders dated 05.05.2023 in WP No. 11760 of 2023 and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to concone the delay of 118 days in filing the rejoinder by permit the petitioners to file their rejoinder to the Vacate stay petition and counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.1 and pass

8 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.11760 of 2023

IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 permit the Petitioners to file this Additional Affidavit along with material papers numbered as Annexures P-20 to P-28 in the present Writ Petition in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

VIMAL VARMA VASI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

HARINATH N (DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA))

GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

Date of Reserved

: 23.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 01.04.2026 Date of Upload

: 01.04.2026

9 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.11760 of 2023

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

Heard Sri K. Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of Sri Vimal Varma Vasi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader of Commercial Tax, appearing for the respondents.

The first petitioner is a limited Company, which is registered under the CGST Act and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and supplying aquatic feed. For the purposes of manufacturing the said aquatic feed, the 1st petitioner imports certain Inputs, such as fish meal, soya, algal oil. The petitioner had claimed exemption from payment of tax, under the IGST Act, in relation to the import of some of these inputs in relation to the assessment years 2017-18 to 2022-23. It may also be recorded that the 1st petitioner has been allotted to the Central Juri iction and not the State Juri iction.

The 1st respondent, Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, on the basis of an authorization issued by the Joint Commissioner, Sales tax, Rajamahendravaram, had inspected the business place of the 1st petitioner on 11.11.2022. Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued an intimation of tax, ascertained as being payable, under Section 73(5) of the GST Act, read with Rule 142(1A), on 19.12.2022. In this intimation, the 1st respondent informed the 1st petitioner that some of the claims, of the 1st petitioner, relating to

10 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.11760 of 2023

exemption and classification of goods was not correct and sought an explanation from the 1st petitioner. The claim of the petitioner for exemption on the supply of Rovimix AVP Mineral, which is an input in the manufacturing of aquatic feed, in the course of import, and import of fishing meal was also sought to be disputed. The 1st petitioner, replied to this intimation, by a reply, dated 12.01.2023. In this reply, the 1st petitioner, replied on the merits of the issues, raised in the said intimation. Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued a second intimation, dated 10.04.2023. This Intimation, which is in the form of a show cause notice has been challenged, along with Circular No.80/54/2018- GST, dated 31.12.2018, issued by the Tax Revenue Unit, Department of Revenue, which denied the benefit of exemption given by the Central Government under an exemption Notification issued under Section 6(1) of the IGST Act.

The case of the petitioners, as reiterated by Sri K. Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of Sri Vimal Varma Vasi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner is as follows:

i) It is the admitted case of the 1st respondent that the 1st petitioner has been allocated to the Central Juri iction. As such no State GST authority can initiate any proceedings against the 1st petitioner;

11 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.11760 of 2023

ii) The IGST Act read with the relevant provisions of the Constitution of India bar any State Authority, under the GST Acts, to initiate, continue or complete any proceedings under the IGST Act;

iii) Section 2(3) and Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the proviso to Section 5(1) of the IGST Act makes it clear that the juri iction to assess the IGST payable, in the course of import of goods, into India, vests solely with the authorities under the Customs Act and no authority under any of the GST Acts can undertake such an exercise;

iv) Circular No. 80/54/2018-GST, dated 31.12.2018, is ultra vires the exemption notification, under Section 6(1) of the IGST Act as the said circular imposes conditions which were not envisaged in the exemption Notification Issued under Section 6(1) of the IGST Act. Further, the said Circular had already been set aside by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Jenefa India vs. Union of India1, by a Judgment dated 05.10.2021 in W.P(MP) 16770 to 16776 of 2019. 5. The learned Senior Counsel would also contend that various issues which had not been raised in the intimation, dated 19.12.2022, have been raised in the fresh intimation, dated 10.04.2023, and the same is not permissible.

1 (2021) 95 GSTR 131:2021 SCC Online mad 13910

12 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.11760 of 2023

The 1st respondent had filed a counter affidavit. In this counter affidavit, it is submitted that the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable as it has been filed against the show cause notice, without exhausting the remedy of approaching the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent relying upon Section 6 of the APGST Act contends that the officers, under the APGST Act are authorised, by virtue of Section 6, to issue any orders or proceedings under the CGST Act and such cross empowerment has been discussed by the GST Council in its 9th meeting on 16.01.2017 wherein it was decided that no separate notification is required for authorities under the State GST Acts to exercise powers conferred on Central Tax Officers.

The 1st respondent, on the basis of Section 6 would further contend that the notification issued by the Chief Commissioner of Commercial Tax, dated 30.06.2017, authorizes the 1st respondent to take up assessment in relation to the 1st petitioner, even under the IGST Act. The 1st respondent has also set out the case of the 1st respondent, on the merits of the case.

The learned Government pleader has filed written submissions. In these submissions, the learned government pleader has sought to argue on the merits of the case. As this court is on the question of juri iction, these contentions are not being considered. The learned government pleader, on the question of juri iction, would contend that Section 6 of the APGST Act, cross empowers all officers under the APGST Act, to discharge functions under the CGST and IGST Acts. He relies upon an office memorandum, dated

13 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.11760 of 2023

30.06.

2017, issued by the joint secretary of the GST Council, clarifying that officers under one Act can take action against tax payers, even in relation to proceedings under the other GST Acts. He would also rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad, in Shree Maa Trading Company and Consideration of the Court:

The preliminary issue, before this Court, is on the maintainability of the writ petition. In the normal course, this Court would not interfere, at the stage of a show cause notice unless it is demonstrated that the show cause notice itself is wholly without juri iction. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation vs.