M/S Abrars Today Fashion Mall vs. The Assistant Commissioner

in CTD Order NO.DIN3710122468309 without establishing mens-rea, without satisfying the ingredients mentioned in the section 122 (i) (ii) The show cause notice is not preceded by intimation which would be issued in DRC-01A and issued without establishing the mens-rea or conducting any enquiry as requested by the Petitioner with the suppliers of buyers and the order is passed without considering the objections; (ifi) the appellate authority dismissing the appeal vide its order dated 10-12-2024 without even considering the grounds as well es written arguments raised by the Petitioner (iv) Section 122 and Rule 168 not speaking about the period of limitation under which the penalty order has to be passed as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, irrational, improper, unfair, contrary to the provisions of GST Act and Rules, muchless section 122 and violative of the principles of natural justice as the authority has not adhered to the provisions of the GST Act and rules and violative of articles 14, 19(1) (g), 21, 265 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and is in contrary to the judgements 6f various High Courts and also Hon’ble supreme Court and consequently to ^et aside the same. lA 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 grant stay of the collection of disputed penalty and interest pending disposal pf the writ petition.

w ^^Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M V J K KUMAR f/ Counsel for the Respondent No.5: GP FOR REVENUE / Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1,2,3:GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI PASALA PONNA RAO, DEPUl^ SOLICITOR general OF INDIA The Court made the following order:

APHC010131782025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Juri iction) [3529] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 7797/2025 Between: 1.M/S ABRARS TODAY FASHION MALL, D.NO. 13/1/7D, P.K. STREET, TIRUPATI-517501 ANDHRA PRADESH. REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI HAJI SYED ABRAR AHMED, S/0. H.S. AHMED BASHEER, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2.THE JOINT COMMISSIONER ST, CHITTOOR DIVISION, CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3.THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER ST, APPELLATE AUTHORITY, TIRUPATI, ANDHRA PRADESH.

2 ...RESPONDENT(S): praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant stay of collection of disputed penalty and interest pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counselfor the Petitioner: 1.MVJK KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE ■

T 4 No.2830 Qf 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 Service Tax Act, 2017, would not rectify such a defect. Further, following this judgment another Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner^ \n WP No.29397 of 2023, decided on 10.11.2023, had set aside the impugned assessment order. Further, the petitioner would contend that, notice under Rule 142(1 A) has not been issued prior to the assessment order. It is further contended by the counsel that, the issue is no more res- integra as the same is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court 4. dated 13.10.2023 in WP No. 12850 of 2022. This Court in the said judgment had gone into the question of whether an assessment order can be passed without prior Tax Intimation Notice under Rule 142(1A) and held that the issuance of notice under Rule 142(1A) of the GST Rules is mandatory prior to the amendment in October, 2020 and non issuance of such a notice would render the assessment order invalid. In the case on hand, the tax period covers both pre amended and post amended periods, the respondent ^ (2024) 1 ALD 448 V

5 authorities are bound to follow the procedure contemplated under Rule 142(1A). Admittedly, in the present case the respondent authorities did not issue notice under Rule 142(1A) and the same is not disputed by the then Government Pleader for Commercial Tax. Though, the grounds raised in the present writ petition were not raised before the respondents either at time of passing assessment order or before the appellate authority, in view of the fact that the respondent authorities are bound to follow the procedure contemplated under the GST Act, 2017 and the Rules made thereunder. Since the respondents did not adhere to the said procedure, the impugned orders passed by the respondents are not sustainable.

r \ HIGH COURT DATED:26/09/2025 ■& I bRDER WP NO. 7797 OF 2025 I 1 f- I ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS i \ ■i i .