M/S.C.Eswara Reddy And Co. vs. The Additional Commissioner (St)

APHC010031092026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 2153/2026 Between: 1. M/S.C.ESWARA REDDY AND CO.,, 105, 1ST SAILOCK APARTMENT, SAPTAGIRINAGAR, JHOHARAPURAM ROAD KURNOOL. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. REP. BY ITS PARTNER MR.KONUDULA PRAVEEN KUMAR REDDY ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER ST, APPELLATE AUTHORITY, TIRUPATI 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ST, SPECIAL CIRCLE-KNL, KURNOOL, ANDHRA PRADESH 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, (COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT), A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...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 Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or direction declaring i) the action of the 1st Respondent in passing the the Appeal Order, dated 23.09.2025, without considering the contentions of the Petitioner and dismissing the appeal in a summery manner and 2 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.2153 of 2026 confirming the adjudication order dated 29.12.2023 and Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 29.12.2023 passed by the 2nd Respondent, as arbitrary, bias, contrary to the Provisions of the Act and the same is in violations of Principles of Natural Justice and Rule of Law and consequently set aside the Appeal Order, dated 23.09.2025 passed by the 1st Respondent and the Order under Section 73, dated 29.12.2023, the Summery of the Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 29.12.2023 passed by the 2nd Respondent as null and void ii) the Order dated 29.12.2023 passed by the 2nd Respondent under Section 73 of CGST/SGST Acts, 2017 is patently illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law, without issuing a statutory prior notice under Rule 142 (1A) of the CGST/SGST Rules and without signature of the 2nd Respondent in Summery of the Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 29.12.2023 is not valid in the eye of law. iii) against the Appeal Proceedings of the 1st Respondent, dated 23.09.2025 further appeal cannot be preferred before the Appellate Tribunal, as it is not yet started functioning. Hence, the Proceedings of both the Authorities are not valid in the eye of law 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 suspend the operation of the Appeal Order, dated 23.09.2025 passed by the 1st Respondent and the Order dated 29.12.2023 and Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 29.12.2023 passed by the 2^^ Respondent, for the tax period 2017-18 under the CGST / SGST / IGST Act 2017, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, as otherwise, the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 3 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.2153 of 2026 The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner had suffered an Order of Assessment, dated 29.12.2023, along with the summary of the order, levying tax, penalty and interest, under the G.S.T. Act. This Order of assessment was challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority. The said Appeal came to be dismissed, on 23.09.2025. 2. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition. 3. Sri Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised various grounds of challenge, including the contention that, the order of assessment, did not contain any signature and needs to be set aside and the contention that, the assessment proceedings were not preceded by a Notice, under Rule 142(1)(A) of the C.G.S.T. Rules. 4. The effect of the absence of the signature, on an assessment order, was earlier considered by this Court, in the case of A.V. Bhanoji Row Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), in W.P.No.2830 of 2023, decided on 14.02.2023. A Division Bench of this Court, had held that the signature, on the assessment order, cannot be dispensed with and that the provisions of Sections-160 & 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, would not rectify such a defect. Following this Judgment, another Division Bench of this Court, in the case of M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant 4 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.2153 of 2026 Commissioner, in W.P.No.29397 of 2023, decided on 10.11.2023, had set