M/S. Ms Marine Traders vs. Assistant Commissioner
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER
1 APHC010104342025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Juri iction) [3529] WEDNE AY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 5650/2025 Between: M/s. Ms Marine Traders, ...PETITIONER AND Assistant Commissioner and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX
The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R, Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner, who is registered under the APGST Act, was subjected to assessment for the period 2022-2023 and 2023-2024, under the provisions of the APGST Act, by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) Jagannaikpur Circle Kakinada Division. The bone of contention was whether Vannamei Shrimp, sold by 2. the petitioner, for the relevant period, fall under HSN Code No.0306 or would
2 / fall under any other category. The petitioner had been granted an opportunity of hearing in which the Chartered Accountant of the petitioner and the husband of the petitioner are said to have attended on 31.01.2025. The Assistant Commissioner, who is arrayed as respondent No.1 herein, had recorded that the Chartered Accountant had attended the personal hearing, granted on 31.01.2025, and had reiterated the objections filed by the tax payer on 17.01.2025. However, the Assistant Commissioner refused to go into the submissions made by the Chartered Accountant on the ground that the Chartered Accountant was not an authorized person and did not submit authorization letter. any 3. The said rejection of the representation is contained in the assessment order, dated 04.02.2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The petitioner, being aggrieved by this order of assessment, dated 04.02.2025, bearing DIN.No.3704022539571, has approached this Court, by way of the present writ petition.
The contention of the Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner was entitled to three adjournments, under the proviso to Section 75(5) of the GST Act, which was not given and that the rejection of the representation of the Chartered Accountant, without giving any further opportunity would violate the principles of natural justice.
The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes would oppose the same contending that the Assessing Officer is not required to consider the representations made by unauthorized persons and the burden that necessary authorization papers are filed before the Assessing Officer on the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader would also contend that IS the proviso to Section 75(5) only states that upto three adjournments would have to be granted at the request of the petitioner. However, the benefit of this provision would be available only when such a request is made. As no such request was made, no further adjournments had been granted.
Sri Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy would further contend that the Chartered Accountant had produced various invoices of the petitioner, to demonstrate that the goods sold by the petitioner were Vannamei shrimp falling under HSN Code 0306. These invoices were disregarded by Assessing Officer, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to represent the as the Assessing Officer held that the Chartered Accountant authorized person. same was not an 8. Perusal of the impugned order of assessment shows that the petitioner was served with the required notices and had filed her objections 17.01.2025. Thereafter a notice was issued for her personal hearing, fixed 28.01.2025. On that date further time was sought by the petitioner and the date of hearing of the case was fixed on 31.01.2025. On that date, the Chartered Accountant had attended the personal hearing and appears to have filed, further representation. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed the on on 4 impugned order of assessment on 04.02.2025. The Assessing Officer, while considering the objections raised by the petitioner, refused to look into the material produced by the Chartered Accountant, on 31.01.2025, on the ground that he was not an authorized person. It does not appear that such intimation was given to the petitioner or to the Chartered Accountant when he appeared on 31.01.2025. 9. The Assessing Officer was justified in refusing to accept the representation made by an unauthorized person. However, in such a situation. the assessing officer would have to inform the petitioner that the said representation is not being accepted and give a further opportunity to the petitioner to produce the said material either by herself or through a duly authorized representative. The action of the assessing officer in passing of an order of 10. assessment without giving such opportunity to the petitioner would amount to a violation of principles of natural justice. In the circumstances, this Writ petition is allowed setting aside the 11. order of assessment order. dated 04.02.2025 bearing St respondent, and the matter is remanded back to the 1®* respondent for appropriate hearing and passing of orders after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner to representher case DIN.No.3704022539571,passed by the 1 and to produce such documents as may be deemed to be necessary either by the petitioner herself or through an authorized representative.
.... , 5 ; ■ As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. U.SRl DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //// SECTION OFFICER To.
The Assistant Commissioner(ST), Jagannaickpur Circle, Kakinada Division, Kakinada.
The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (CT-II) Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.
The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Union of India, Floor, Jeevan Deep Building, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110 001. 4. One CC to Sri Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy, Advocate [OPUC]
One CC to Sri Pasala Ponna Rao, Deputy Solicitor General of India, High Court of A.P. [OPUC]
Two CC’s to GP for Commercial Tax, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati[OUT]
Three CD Copies. ssb
HIGH COURT 4 t DATED:12/03/2025 ORDER 1 16 JUL 2025 m C9 ^~=^-°g5PATCW^S WP.No.5650 of 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS
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.