M/S Sri Sanjeeva Sai Flour Mill vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
the demands confirmed in the Impugned Order
WRIT PETITION NO: 25308/2025
Between:
M/S SRI SANJEEVA SAI FLOUR MILL,, D.NO. C-26, 38-22-77/1, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, KANCHARAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH- 530007 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. BOINA SASIBHUSHANA RAO ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, (ST), MADHAVADHARA CIRCLE,
VISAKHAPATNAM-LL DIVISION, VISAKHAPATNAM.
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT (COMMERCIAL TAX), A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELEGAPUDI.
THE UNION OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (REVENUE), NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI.
...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, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Show Cause Notice dated 26.12.2023 and consequential order dated 29/04/2024 and recovery order dated 02/09/2025 issued by Respondent No.1 be illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the statutory mandate, besides being violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, and opposed to the principles of natural justice and consequently set-aside the show cause notice dated 26/12/2023 and order dated 29/04/2024 and recovery order dated 02/09/2025 issued by the 1st respondent, by making it clear that, the issuance of Form GST DRC-01A, the mandatory pre-show cause notice under Rule 142(1A) of the COST Rules to be followed and failure to issue this mandatory notice prior to the issuance of the Show Cause Notice vitiate the entire procedure as the consequent Assessment Order dated 29.04.2024 is in gross violation of the provisions of the GST law and pass 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 To stay all further proceedings pursuant to Impugned Order bearing GST DRC-07 bearing Reference No. ZD370424029138E dated 30.04.2024, passed by Respondent No.1, including recovery of the demands confirmed in the Impugned Order and pass
WRIT PETITION NO: 25316/2025
Between:
M/S SRI SANJEEVA SAI FLOUR MILL,, D.NO. C-26, 38-22-77/1, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, KANCHARAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH- 530007 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. BOINA SASIBHUSHANA RAO
...PETITIONER AND 1. THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST, MADHAVADHARACIRCLE,
VISAKHAPATNAM-LL DIVISION, VISAKHAPATNAM.
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT (COMMERCIAL TAX) A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELEGAPUDI.
THE UNION OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (REVENUE), NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI.
...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, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Show Cause Notice dated 31.05.2024 and consequent order dated 31.08.2024 and Recovery order dated 02/09/2025 issued by Respondent No.1 to be illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the statutory mandate, besides being violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, and opposed to the principles of natural justice and consequently set-aside Show Cause Notice dated 31.05.2024 and .consequent order dated 31.08.2024 and Recovery order dated 02/09/2025, by making it clear that, the issuance of Form GST DRC-01A, the mandatory pre-show cause notice under Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules to be followed and failure to issue this mandatory notice prior to the issuance of the Show Cause Notice vitiate the entire procedure as the consequent Assessment Order dated 31-08-2024 is in gross vilation of the provisions of the GST law 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 prays this Hon'ble Court to stay all further proceedings pursuant to Impugned Order dated 31.08.2024, passed by Respondent No.1, including recovery of the demands confirmed Counsel for the Petitioner:
PONNADA SREE VYAS Counsel for the Respondent(S):
GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following Common Order:
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
In all these cases, the petitioner, who has been served with Notices, under Section 61 of the G.S.T. Act, 2017, has approached this Court, with the contention that, the preliminary Notice under Rule 142 1 (A) of the G.S.T. Act, had not been served on the petitioner, prior to the issuance of Notice under Section 61. 2. Section 61 of the G.S.T. Act, stipulates that, a Notice could be issued to a dealer where the proper Officer, after scrutiny of the returns filed by the dealer, is not satisfied as to the correctness of the returns.
Rule 142 1 (A) of the C.G.S.T. Rules, stipulates that, a Notice, under this Rule, would have to be issued prior to any proceeding being taken either under Section 73 (1), 74 (1) or 74 A (1) of the G.S.T. Act.
The respondent – Assessing Authority, contends that, the Notice, under Rule 142 1 (A), is not required to be issued when steps are being taken under Section 61 of the G.S.T. Act.
A perusal of Section 61 of the G.S.T. Act, would show that, where a Notice is issued under Section 61, and the proper officer is not satisfied with the explanation, offered by the dealer, further proceedings are to be initiated under Sections 65, 66, 67, 73 & 74 or 74 A.
In view of the fact that, the proceedings initiated under Section 61, would have to result in proceedings either under Section 73 or under Section 74, it would only be appropriate that, a Notice is issued under Rule 142 1 (A), after scrutiny under Section 61 is completed, and if the proper officer is not satisfied with the explanation given by the dealer, to the deficiencies pointed out by the proper officer.
In the present cases, it appears that the proper officer, after issuing a Notice under Section 61 had proceeded to pass orders of assessment under Section 73, without issuing the Notice under Rule 142 1 (A) of the C.G.S.T. Rules.
Since such a course of action is not permissible, it would be appropriate to dispose of these Writ Petitions, by setting aside the orders of assessment, challenged in these Writ Petitions, and remanding the matters back to the proper officer to take appropriate action, after issuance of a Notice under Rule 142 1 (A) of the G.S.T. Rules. However, it would also be necessary to notice that the principle laid down in this Order would be applicable only to such assessments as are covered for the period prior to the amendment of Rule 142 1 (A), on 15.10.2020. 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:15.10.2025 KPV THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION Nos:25295, 25297, 25308 & 25316 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
2025
KPV
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.