C Eswara Reddy And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (State Tax)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, C Eswara Reddy And Co, challenged an order dated 10.05.2024, issued by the Deputy Commissioner (State Tax), which levied tax, interest, and penalty for the tax period 2020-21. The petitioner argued that the impugned order was invalid because it lacked the signature of the Assessing Officer and did not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN). The petitioner had previously submitted detailed objections on 04.03.2024. The respondents, including the Deputy Commissioner (State Tax), the State of Andhra Pradesh, the Union of India, and the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, were arrayed as respondents. The petitioner sought to declare the order arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and against the principles of natural justice, and consequently, to set it aside.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 10.05.2024, issued by the 1st respondent, was invalid. This decision was based on the concession made by the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, who confirmed that the order lacked both the signature of the Assessing Officer and a DIN number or unique identification number. The Court referred to its previous order in W.P.No.5238 of 2024, which established that such deficiencies render an order invalid. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for appropriate consideration of the objections raised by the petitioner in response to the show-cause notice. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass fresh orders after providing a personal hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with the law. No order as to costs was made.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated 10.05.2024, issued by the 1st respondent, is invalid due to the absence of the Assessing Officer's signature, as per the petitioner's contention? 2. Whether the order dated 10.05.2024, issued by the 1st respondent, is invalid due to the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) or unique identification number, as per the petitioner's contention? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned order was invalid because it did not bear the signature of the Assessing Officer and lacked a DIN or unique identification number. They relied on this Court's order in W.P.No.5238 of 2024, dated 09.03.2024, which held that the absence of a signature and DIN would render an assessment order invalid. The petitioner also argued that their objections were not considered and they were not granted sufficient opportunity of being heard. Respondents' Arguments: The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, conceded that the Assessment Order did not contain any DIN number or unique identification number and that the Order did not contain the signature of the Assessing Officer.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 50(3), Section 73(9)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER
APHC010322752024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Juri iction) [3508] WEDNE AY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHE’iSWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 10428/2024 Between: ...PETITIONER C Eswara Reddy And Co AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The Deputy Commissioner State Tax and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR COMMERCIALTAX The Court made the following order: (perHon’ble Sh Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner had suffered an Order, dated 10.05.2024, in Form respondent had raised tax, interest and penalty St DRC-07, wherein, the 1 amounts against the petitioner. •» i This Order has been assailed by the petitioner before this Court _ by way of the present Writ Petition. Apart from the merits of the case, the petitioner had contended that the Impugned Order does not contain the signature of the Assessing Officer and that it does not contain any DIN number or unique identification ? 2. 3. number.
2
Sri Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this Court, by its Order, dated 09.03.2024, in W.P.No.5238 of 2024, had held that the absence of the signature of the Assessing Officer on the Order of Assessment and the absence of a DIN number or unique identification number would render the said Order invalid.
Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, submits that the Assessment Order did not contain any DIN number or unique identification number and that the Order did not contain the signature of the Assessing Officer. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the Impugned Order dated 10.05.2024 issued by the 1®' respondent and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer, for appropriate consideration of the objections raised by the petitioner, to the show-cause notice issued by the respondent, and for passing orders after giving a personal hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law. There shall be no 6. order as to costs. //// SECTION OFFICER To, Special Circle, Office of the c“”«
The Deputy Joint Commissioner of India, Ministry of Finance North Block, New 3 The Secretary, Union ■Delhi- 110 001. ^
The Chairman,Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, Central Secretariat New Delhi - 100 001. One CC to Sri. Shaik Jeelani Basha, Advocate [OPUC] ^o_CCs to GP For Commercial Tax ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. fnl?i Pasala Ponna Rao, Deputy Solicitor General of India [Ui ULyJ. One CC to Sri Shanthi Chandra, SC for Customs[OPUC]. Two CD Copies 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. HIGH COURT DATED:13/11/2024 ORDER WP.No.16428 of 2024 of AMD7S5 S' * 2 0 DEC 2024 m . Current Section Z:£^SPAJC>^^s^ DISPOSING OF THE WP 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.