Siddamreddy Jaffar Reddy vs. The State Of Ap

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. Firstly, the impugned order dated January 21, 2021, was appealable under the statute, and the petitioner admitted that no appeal was filed, allowing the order to attain finality. The Court also noted the significant delay of over 2 years and 10 months in filing the writ petition without any explanation for the laches. Secondly, the Court found that the ground now raised regarding G.O.Ms. No. 58 and the non-payment of GST on works contracts was not raised before the assessing authority in response to the show cause notice. The Court emphasized that this was a factual plea, and the assessing authority had made a contrary finding of fact that the petitioner suppressed turnover. The Court stated it would not enter into such factual controversies in writ jurisdiction. The Court also held that the pending representation before respondent No. 3 could not be a ground to interfere with the impugned order or restrain its implementation, nor could respondents 1 and 3 be directed to pay the amount assessed against the petitioner. The Court found no case for issuing notice and dismissed the writ petition as lacking merit.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Siddamreddy Jaffar Reddy, filed a writ petition challenging proceedings of assessment under the CGST Act, 2017, dated January 21, 2021, issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST). The petitioner argued that the assessment was illegal as it did not consider the State's action (G.O.Ms. No. 58 dated May 8, 2018) regarding not paying GST on works contracts. The petitioner claimed this order was unsigned and not served. The petitioner also contended that a representation filed on September 22, 2023, before the Executive Engineer, DRD, KC Canal Division, regarding GST on works contracts, was pending. The petitioner sought a direction for the respondents to pay the demanded GST, interest, and penalty. The impugned order was passed on January 21, 2021, and the writ petition was filed over two years and ten months later.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned proceedings of assessment dated January 21, 2021, are liable to be declared illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to statutory provisions, violating Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 265, and 300-A of the Constitution of India, on the ground that the State did not pay GST on works contracts as per G.O.Ms. No. 58 dated May 8, 2018, and that the assessment order was unsigned and not served? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the assessment order was illegal because it failed to consider the State's action of not paying GST on works contracts, contrary to G.O.Ms. No. 58. They argued that the order was unsigned and not served. Furthermore, they submitted that a pending representation regarding GST on works contracts meant the assessment order could not be implemented, and coercive action could not be taken. They sought a direction for respondents 1 and 3 to pay the demanded liability. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the revenue or state respondents. However, the Court's reasoning implies that the revenue authority issued the assessment order after a show cause notice and a factual finding that the petitioner suppressed turnover for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019, despite receiving Rs. 2,09,44,477/- towards works done.