M/S C Eswara Reddy And Co vs. Te Deputy Commissioner (State Tax)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s C Eswara Reddy And Co, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 10.05.2024, passed by the 1st respondent, the Deputy Commissioner (State Tax). This order levied tax, interest, and penalty for the tax period 2019-20. The petitioner argued that the impugned order lacked the signature of the Assessing Officer and did not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN) or unique identification number. The petitioner also claimed that their objections, filed on 23.02.2024, were not considered, and they were not granted a sufficient opportunity of being heard. The petitioner sought to declare the order arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and against the principles of natural justice.
Held
The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order dated 10.05.2024. The Court noted the petitioner's contention that the order lacked the signature of the Assessing Officer and a DIN number. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax conceded these points. The Court relied on its previous order in W.P.No.5238 of 2024, which held that the absence of the Assessing Officer's signature and a DIN number would render an order invalid. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The Assessing Officer is directed to consider the objections raised by the petitioner, issue a fresh show-cause notice, and pass orders after granting the petitioner a personal hearing, in accordance with the law. No order as to costs was made.
Key Issues
1. Whether the absence of the Assessing Officer's signature on the order of assessment renders the order invalid, as per the High Court's previous ruling in W.P.No.5238 of 2024? 2. Whether the absence of a DIN number or unique identification number on the order of assessment renders the order invalid? 3. Whether the impugned order, passed without considering the petitioner's objections and without granting a sufficient opportunity of being heard, is liable to be set aside? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned order dated 10.05.2024 was invalid due to the absence of the Assessing Officer's signature and a DIN number. They relied on the High Court's order in W.P.No.5238 of 2024, which held that such omissions would invalidate an assessment order. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that their objections were not considered and they were denied a proper hearing, violating principles of natural justice. Respondents' Arguments: The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax conceded that the assessment order did not contain any DIN number or unique identification number and also lacked 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
APHC010323472024 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 MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 18397/2024 Between: M/s C Eswara Reddy And Co ...PETITIONER AND Te Deputy Commissioner State Tax and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following order: (perHon’ble Sh Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) ...RESPONDENT(S) The petitioner had suffered an Order, dated 10.05.2024, in Form DRC-07, wherein, the 1®^ respondent had raised tax, interest and penalty amounts against the petitioner. ] C
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 number.
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 . u. 2 ■ P 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. 2024, Pleader for Commercial Tax, on Government Learned submits that the Assessment Order did not contain any DIN number or unique identification number and that the Order did not contain the 5. instructions. 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 remanded back to the Assessing Officer, for appropriate 6. the matter is consideration of the objections raised by the petitioner, to the show-cause respondent, and for passing orders after giving a personal hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law. There shall be no St notice issued by the 1 N.NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR order as to costs. //// S^CTl^ OFFICER To, • or rc^^tate Tax) Special Circle, Office of the (ST). Kurnool. kmS' Andhm Pradesh, of India, Ministry of Finance , North Block, New 3 The Secretary Union Delhi - 110 001. ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh.
OneCCto Sri. 6 Two CCS to [OUT] 7 OneCCto Sri [OPUC]
One CC to 9. Three CD Copies GP For Commercial Tax Solicitor General of India Sri Shanthi Chandra, SC for Custonrs lOPUC] Pasala Ponna Rao, Deputy A T
iT' HIGH COURT 4 ’ DATED:13/11/2024 ORDER WP.No.16397of2024 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.