Sri Venkateswara Constructions vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
APHC010097902026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Juri iction) [3529] TUE AY,THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 5388/2026 Between:
SRI VENKATESWARA CONSTRUCTIONS, 4/539/2, RAMALAYAM STREET, ARAVINDANAGAR, CHINNA CHOWK, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 516001, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MR. V. VISWANADHA REDDY.
...PETITIONER AND 1. THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, (ST)-I, O/O ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST), KADAPA-I CIRCLE, KADAPA DIVISION, D. NO. 1/499, 1ST FLOOR, 0PP. YSR GUEST HOUSE, SMITH ROAD, NEAR ZILLA PARISHAD, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-516001. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (CT) DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
THE UNION OF INDIA, , REP. BY ITS SECRETARY (FINANCE), MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, 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
2
pleased topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly in the nature of MANDAMUS declaring that the impugned Assessment Order vide ARN AD371224023600, dated 23-01- 2026, passed by the First Respondent for the F.Y. 2023-24 under the CGST/SGST Acts, 2017, as arbitrary, capricious, perverse, violative of the principles of natural justice, violative of S. 75(4) of the CGST/SGST Acts, 2017, without juri iction, without authority, contrary to law, unjustified, unreasonable and illegal and consequently set aside the same 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings, including recovery of tax, penalty and interest, pursuant to the impugned Assessment Order vide ARN; AD371224023600, dated 23-01-2026, passed by the First Respondent for the F.Y. 2023-24 under the CGST/SGST Acts, 2017, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
G NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 2. 3
The Court made the following Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
The petitioner executes work contracts for various Government authorities and he is a registered person under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for brevity, the “GST Act”).
The assessment of the petitioner for the year 2023-2024 was taken up by the 1st respondent. One of the issues raised in the show-cause notices, prior to the assessment was the non-reporting of a sum of Rs.52,50,500/- said to have been received from the Executive Engineer, PIU Division, Kadapa at Badvel. The 1st respondent, sought an explanation from the petitioner, as to why the said turnover had not been disclosed in the returns filed by the petitioner and proposes to bring the turnover to tax.
The petitioner by its response, dated 14.03.2025 had stated that the said turnover did not relate to the petitioner and that the Executive Engineer had made a mistake while uploading these turnovers GSTR-& returns, by including the name of the petitioner, against this turnover while the said turnover actually related to M/s Sri Venkateswara Constructions, Cumbam, which has a separate registration under the GST Act. A certificate issued by the Executive Engineer, admitting to such a mistake, also appears to have been filed by the 1st respondent.
However, the 1st respondent, while recording this fact did not consider the said certificate and passed an order of assessment, dated 23.01.2026 including the said turnovers of the petitioners and levied tax on the said turnover.
Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner approached this Court, by way of the present writ petition contending violation of principles of natural justice
4
inasmuch as the contention raised by the petitioner along with the documentary evidence, had not been considered by the 1st respondent.
A perusal of the impugned order, dated23.01.2026 passed by the 1st respondent, does not reveal any consideration of this plea of the petitioner, despite regarding the said plea in the said order. Non-consideration of such a plea would amount to violation of principles of natural justice.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would also contend that certain taxes paid by the petitioner were also not taken into account.
In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 23.01.2026 and remanded the matter back to the 1st respondent to consider the said contentions raised by the petitioner and pass an order in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
_________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J
Date: 10.03.2026 KA
5
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 5388/2026
Date: 10.03.2026 KA
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.