Sri. Siddamreddy Jaffar Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was without merit and dismissed it. The Court found that the impugned order dated January 21, 2021, had attained finality as the petitioner admitted it was appealable under the statute but no appeal was filed. The Court also noted the significant delay of over two years and ten months in filing the writ petition without any explanation for the laches. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the non-payment of GST on works contracts as per G.O.Ms. No. 58 was a ground to challenge the validity of the assessment order. The Court observed that this plea was not raised before the Assistant Commissioner during the assessment proceedings, and the petitioner's counsel admitted this. The Court further noted that the plea involved a factual controversy, with the authority finding that the petitioner had received a substantial amount towards works done but showed 'nil' turnover and tax in their GSTR 3-B returns, indicating suppression of facts. The Court stated it would not enter into such factual disputes in writ jurisdiction. Regarding the pending representation, the Court held that it could not be a basis to interfere with the impugned order or restrain its implementation, and respondents 1 and 3 could not be directed to pay the amount assessed against the petitioner. The Court was not inclined to issue notice, distinguishing the present case from another petition where notice was issued.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri. Siddamreddy Jaffar Reddy, a contractor providing works contract services to government departments, filed a writ petition challenging proceedings of assessment under the SGST Act, 2017, dated January 21, 2021. This order, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), demanded GST, interest, and penalty under Section 73 of the SGST Act. The petitioner contended that the assessment was illegal as GST was not paid on works contracts contrary to G.O.Ms. No. 58 dated May 8, 2018. The petitioner also claimed the assessment order was unsigned and not served. The petitioner admitted that the order was appealable under the statute but no appeal was filed, and the writ petition was filed over two years and ten months after the order, without explaining the delay. The petitioner further stated that a representation dated September 22, 2023, regarding the non-payment of GST on works contracts was pending before the Executive Engineer.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned proceedings of assessment under the SGST Act, 2017, dated January 21, 2021, are illegal, arbitrary, and liable to be declared so, particularly concerning the demand for GST, interest, and penalty under Section 73 of the SGST Act, considering the petitioner's contention regarding G.O.Ms. No. 58 dated May 8, 2018, and the alleged non-service of the order? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was illegal and arbitrary because GST was not paid on works contracts as per G.O.Ms. No. 58. They also claimed the order was unsigned and not served. Furthermore, they contended that until their representation regarding the non-payment of GST was considered, the assessment order could not be implemented, and no coercive action could 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. However, the Court's reasoning implies that the revenue's position was that the assessment order was valid and that the petitioner had suppressed facts regarding their turnover.