BharatTaxGST

Yp Chalama Reddy vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)

Original PDF →
WP/911/2025HC Andhra PradeshGSTCNR APHC01000929202520 January 2026Bench: R RAGHUNANDAN RAO,T.C.D.SEKHAR5 pages
For Petitioner: DANTU SRINIVASFor Respondent: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
APHC010009292025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST 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: 911/2025 Between: 1. YP CHALAMA REDDY,, S/O Y. NARAYANAREDDY , AGE 54 YEARS, BUSINESS R/O 4-18-14/1, VETARINARY HOSPITAL, SUNDIPENTA - 518102, NANDYAL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST FAC, NANDYAL - I CIRCLE, KURNOOL DIVISION, KURNOOL, (A.P.). 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER ST, KURNOOL DIVISION, KURNOOL, (A.P.). 3. THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST1, GOODS AND SERVICES TAX, NANDYAL - I CIRCLE, KURNOOL DIVISION, KURNOOL (A.P.). 4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI MANDAL, 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 tomay be pleased to issue any Writ, Order or direction, more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus and declare the impugned 2 SUMMARY OF THE ORDER passed by the first respondent in FORM GST DRC - 7 dated 27-04-2023 in Reference No ZD3704230370761 as null and void, illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, barred by time and without application of mind and set aside the same and issue any other Writ, Order or direction as this Honble Court may be pleased to deem fit and proper. 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 may be pleased to grant Stay of all further proceedings including recovery of disputed amounts from the petitioner in pursuance of impugned SUMMARY OF THE ORDER issued in FORM GST DRC - 07 dated 27-04-2023 passed by the first respondent and the consequential Notice dated 16-10-2024 issued by the third respondent in DIN: DIN3716102450098, pending disposal of this Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. DANTU SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 3

The Court made the following Order:

The petitioner herein was served with an Order dated 27.04.2023, raising certain tax demands. This Order was in Form GST DRC-7 (summary of the order). However, the underlined original order was not served on the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition.

2.

The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, submits that the order served on the petitioner was the original order, which was mistakenly “labeled as the summary of the order”. He would also fairly concede that the summary of the order was not uploaded and steps are being taken to upload the said summary of the order.

3.

In that view of the matter, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to upload the summary of the order within a period of two weeks from today, with intimation to the petitioner. Thereafter, it would be open to the petitioner to assail the order, dated 27.04.2023, as well as the summary of the order within the statutory period of the appeal. Needless to say, the said period shall be calculated from the date on which the summary of the order is uploaded by the 1st respondent.

4.

In the event of any such appeal being filed, it would be open to the petitioner to raise all or any questions of fact or law in the said appeal and the same shall be considered by the appellate authority according to the law.

4

5.

Sri Dantu Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner would also contend that the property of the petitioner had been attached on the basis of the Order, dated 27.04.2023 and the same would be impermissible as the Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 itself provides that no coercive steps would be taken against the registered person during the period of the appeal and in the present case, the period of the appeal has not yet elapsed. This contention merits consideration.

6.

Accordingly, the order of attachment passed against the property of the petitioner shall stand set aside. 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: 21.01.2026

Note:- Issue C.C. by one week, B/o. BSM

5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

WRIT PETITION No.911 of 2025

21-01-2026

Note:- Issue C.C. by one week, B/o. BSM

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.