Prakash Rao Ravinuthala vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Held
The Court held that the question of whether the petitioners' statements would be accepted by the 3rd respondent depends on the statements themselves and the respondent's discretion, and this does not grant the petitioners the right to refuse to appear. Therefore, the petitioners cannot refuse to appear before the 3rd respondent. However, acknowledging the petitioners' apprehensions, the Court directed the 3rd respondent to permit the petitioners to be accompanied by an advocate during their examination. The examination is to be conducted during office hours (10:00 am to 5:00 pm), and the petitioners shall not be detained beyond this period. No order as to costs was made.
Facts
The petitioners, Prakash Rao Ravinuthala and others, filed a writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging a summons issued by the 3rd respondent under Section 70 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, dated April 25, 2025. The summons required the petitioners to appear and produce documents concerning M/s. Sri Tech Pro and M/s. Sri Vijaya Tech Pro, as they were stated to be the proprietors of these firms. The petitioners contended that their son had previously been investigated for GST evasion and arrested, and they had no knowledge of their son's activities or the firms' evasion. They apprehended coercive methods and that their statements of no knowledge would not be accepted.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioners can refuse to appear before the 3rd respondent based on their apprehension that their statements of no knowledge regarding the firms' affairs will not be accepted (Question of law). The petitioners argued that due to their son's prior arrest for GST evasion and their lack of knowledge about the firms' activities, they feared coercive measures and that their statements would be disregarded. They sought to avoid appearing. The revenue (represented by GP for Home) did not explicitly record arguments, but the Court's reasoning implies that non-appearance is not permissible solely based on such apprehensions. The Court considered the petitioners' apprehensions regarding the acceptance of their statements and potential coercive methods.
Sections Cited
Section 70
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
APHC010235282025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3525] WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 11757/2025 Between: Prakash Rao Ravinuthala and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
MD SALEEM Counsel for the Respondent(S):
GP FOR HOME The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
The 3rd respondent has issued summons to the petitioners, under the provisions of Section-70 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, dated 25.04.2025, calling upon the petitioners to appear before him to produce certain documents etc., in relation to the affairs of M/s. Sri Tech Pro and M/s. Sri Vijaya Tech Pro, on the ground that they are the proprietaries of these firms.
Aggrieved by the said summons, dated 25.04.2025, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition.
2
The petitioners contend that their son ha
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.