BharatTaxGST

Kapiraju Granites vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Original PDF →
WP/24884/2024HC Andhra PradeshGSTCNR APHC01048095202403 November 2024Bench: R RAGHUNANDAN RAO,MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM6 pages
For Petitioner: SRI KANDERI CHETHANFor Respondent: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 24884 OF 2024 Between: Kapiraju Granites, A Proprietary Concern Having its office at S. No. 267, 40 feest Road, Chukkalur GP, Tadipatri, Ananthapuram District, A.P, Represented by it's Proprietor Marithala Rajya lakshmi, W/o. M. Venugopal Reddy R/o. Tadipatri, Ananthapuram District Andhra Pradesh- 515411 ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through the Principal Secretary, Finance (Commercial Taxes) Department A.P. Secretariat, Velgapudi - Guntur District. 2. The Commercial Tax Officer, Tadipatri Circle, Ananthapuram, A.P 3. The Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Ananthapuram, A.P ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus for other appropriate Writ direction Of Order declaring that the action of the any 2nd Respondent in issuing notices dated 31.12.2022 for attaching the bank -accounts of the petitioner in pursuance of orders dated 18.06.2019 and ' 1,4J,0.2019 based on the alleged information received from Respondent ‘No.3 as arbitrary, illegal, unauthorized, without jurisdiction and ifnconstitutional, besides being violative of the Petitioner's rights guaranteed under Article , 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the same. 7 ^ lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 to release the petitioner’s bank accounts from attachment so to enable the petitioner to have access to the bank account and to withdraw the funds lying in those accounts. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI KANDERI CHETHAN Counsel for the Respondents No.1,2: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR VIGILANCE

The Court made the following: ORDER

APHC010480952024 IN THE HIGH COUIFST OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Or iginal Juri iction) [3508] & ■Ja MONDAY, THE FOURT H DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R F^AGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 24884/2024 Between: Kapiraju Granites ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.K/^NDERI CHETHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following Order: The petitioner is a proprietary concern which had registered ...RESPONDENT(S) (per Hon'blo Slri Justice R. Raghunandan RaoJ under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 [for the short “the APVAT Act”]. The petitioner had suffered Orders of assessment, dated 18.06.2019 and 14.10.2019, in relation to various periods between 2012 to 2018. Thereafter, the 2^^‘ respondent had issued attachment notices dated 31.12.2022, to the banker of the proprietrix of the petitioner for attachment and recovery of the amounts under the Orders of assessment dated 18.06.2019 & 14.10.2019. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said Orders, dated 31.12.2022, has approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition.

The contention of the petitioner is that the amounts due under the APVAT Act and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [for short “the CST Act”] cannot be recovered through the coercive process of the Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act’]. It is further contended that the personal account of the proprietrix of the petitioner cannot be attached for recovery of amounts due from the petitioner. 4. c; Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax would contend o. that Rule-142A of the Central Goods Service Tax Rules, 2017 [ for short “ the CGST Rules”] enables the authority, under the GST Act, to recover the dues arising out of the APVAT Act and the CST Act. He would further contend that the Writ Petition is barred by latches in as much as the Order of attachment was issued on 31.12.2022, while the present Writ Petition came to be filed only in October, 2024. He would also point to the fact that the Orders of assessment are not under challenge and as such, the recovery of the amounts due under the said Orders of assessment cannot be challenged in this manner.

6.

Rule-142A of the CGST Rules reads as follows:- "Rule 142A - Procedure for recovery of dues under existing laws:- (1) A summary of order issued under any of the existing laws creating demand of tax, interest, penalty, fee or any other dues which becomes recoverable consequent to proceedings launched under the existing law before, on or after the appointed day shall, unless recovered under that law, be recovered under the Act and may be uploaded in FORM GST DRC-07A electronically on the common portal for recovery under the Act and the demand of the order shall be posted In Part II of Electronic Liability Register in FORM GST PMT-01. (2) Where the demand of an order uploaded under sub-rule (1) is rectified or modified or quashed in any proceedings, including in appeal, review or revision, or the recovery is made under the existing laws, a summary thereof shall be uploaded on the common portal in FORM GST DRC-08A and Part II of Electronic Liability Register in FORM GST PMT-01 shall be updated accordingly.”

3 This Rule clearly empowers the authorities under the GST Act to recover dues under the earlier tax regime covered by the APVAT Act or the CST Act. 7

3.

Recovery of dues of the proprietary firm from the proprietrix cannot be objected to as the proprietary firm and the proprietrix are one and the same under law. The mere appending of a name for the proprietary firm would not in any manner denude the^ liability of the proprietor/ proprietrix of such a proprietary firm. The fact remains that the? Orders of attachment were issued on 31.12.2022, whereas the petitioner has approached this Court on 26.10.2024 and the same is clearly barred by latcties.

9.10.

In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it is clarified that while the tax authorities may recover the tax dues of the petitioner from the bank account of the proprietrix, it would also be open to the bank to permit the proprietrix to operate the account subject to the condition of a minimum balance of the amount demanded by the tax authorities being retaineddn the bank account at all time, till such an amount is recovered by the tax authorities. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. A VIJAYA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //// To, l,^0ne CC to SRI. KANDERl CHETHAN, Advocate [OPUC]

2.

TwoCCsto GP FOR COMMEITCIAL T/VX, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

3.

TwoCCsto GP FOR VIGILANCE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

4.

Three C.D.Copies nm

HIC3H COURT DATED:04/11/2024 ORDER WP.No.24884 of 2024 'g 01 MAY 2025 ^ Cunent Sacnon DISMISING 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.