K Babu Rao Engineering Works vs. The Assistant Commissioner

K BABU RAO ENGINEERING WORKS, REPRESENTED BY ITS MG. PARTNER, MR. KOTRA BABU RAO, D.NO.-60-31-102/1, JANATA COLONY, MALKAPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM-530 011

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (CT-II) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

THE UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, NEW DELHI.

The petitioner filed his reply, on 07.01.2025. In the reply, the petitioner set out a table for the financial year, 2023-2024 and another table for the financial year, 2024-2025, setting out the turnover disclosed in the GSTR-7 Forms, filed by the contractees of the petitioner and the turnover disclosed by the petitioner in the GSTR-3B Forms.

The case of the petitioner was that, the contractees had only disclosed those turnovers, for which payments had been made for the year, 2023-2024, while the petitioner had disclosed the entire turnovers of the work done irrespective of whether payment has been made or not. The contention of the petitioner was that, on account of this discrepancy, the turnover disclosed by the petitioner in GSTR-3B Forms was in excess of Rs.47,68,454.56/- as compared to the turnover disclosed by the contractees. The petitioner contended that, the contractees had disclosed higher turnovers, for the year 2024-2025, while the petitioner had disclosed lower turnovers as he had already disclosed excess turnover for the year, 2023-2024. 4. The 1st respondent, again issued a notice, in FORM GST DRC - 01, dated 01.03.2025. In this notice, there is no intimation of the reply given by the petitioner, under Form GST ASMT - 11. The 1st respondent, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, had passed an assessment order, dated 14.08.2025, confirming the tax demanded under the show-cause notice, on the ground that, the petitioner had not chosen to file any objection to the notice, issued on 01.03.2025. 5. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order, dated 14.08.2025, has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition.

Sri A. Sarveswar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that, the said order suffers from two primary infirmities. Firstly, the notice and proceedings had been initiated, under Section 73 of the G.S.T. Act and the same is impermissible. This is because the amendment to the G.S.T. Act, barred the assessment proceedings to be conducted, under Section 73 of the G.S.T. Act, for the financial years after 2023-2024 and provided that such assessment, could be carried out only under Section 74A of the G.S.T. Act. The second ground raised by the learned counsel is that, the objections raised by the petitioner, in Form GST ASMT - 11, had not been considered by the 1st respondent, before issuing a Notice, dated 01.03.2025, and before passing the impugned assessment order. Learned counsel would also draw the attention of this Court to the medical reports, filed along with the Writ Petition, showing that, the petitioner had suffered a stroke and had also undergone surgery, which had kept him bedridden, during the relevant time, due to which he was unable to reply to the show-cause notice, dated 01.03.2025. 7. Smt. V. Disha Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the respondents, would contend that, though the notice had been issued under Section 73/74 of the G.S.T. Act, the same would not render the notice or the subsequent orders invalid in as much as the mentioning of a wrong provision of law, would not invalidate the order as long as the Authority can draw sustenance from any other provision in the Act.

This Court does not propose to go into the first question in as much as the present Writ Petition can be disposed of, on the second ground. From the record, it appears that, the objections had been filed by the petitioner against the original notice, dated 07.12.2024, issued under Section 61 of the G.S.T. Act. It is also apparent that, these objections had not been considered by the 1st respondent, before issuing a notice, dated 01.03.2025. 9. In these circumstances, it would have to be held that, there has been violation of principles of natural justice, requiring this Court to set aside the impugned order, dated 14.08.2025. 10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order, dated 14.08.2025 and remanding the matter back to the Authority for passing fresh orders, in accordance with Law and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

2026