BharatTaxGST

Vesgan Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Original PDF →
WP/7024/2026HC Andhra PradeshGSTCNR APHC01013349202616 March 2026Bench: R RAGHUNANDAN RAO,T.C.D.SEKHAR5 pages
For Petitioner: N BHARATH SIMHA REDDYFor Respondent: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
APHC010133492026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 7024/2026 Between: 1. VESGAN CONSTRUCTIONS, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR GUNDRE SAIKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O D.NO.19/9/.169/F2, SBI COLONY, RC ROAD, TIRUPATI, ANDHRA PRADESH 517502 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522237 2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER STATE TAX, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, KUNCHANAPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 522501 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STATE TAX, TIRUPATI II CIRCLE, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT 517501 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, CANARA BANK, HAVING OFFICE AT PLOT NO.2, BIRAGIPATETEDA, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT 517501 ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 topleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction preferably a 2 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.7024 of 2026 Writ in the nature of Mandamus for declaring the Notice dated 24.2.2026 issued by 3rd Respondent to Respondet bank to freeze the bank account of the Petitioner and directing the 4rt Respondent bank to pay Rs.7,01,722/- from the bank account of the Petitioner to the 3rd Respondent and Demand Order dated 30.5.2023 and Demand Order dated 24.5.2022 demanding Tax Total Amount of Rs.7,01,722/- for the government contract works completed by the Petitioner prior to commencement of COST Act,2017 and SGST Act,2017 i.e 1.7.2017 under the premise that bills were paid by the Government after commencement of CGST Act and SGST Act as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14, 19, 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the Notice dated 24.2.2026 issued by 3rd Respondent and Demand Orders issued by 3rd Respondent vide Demand Order dated 30.5.2023 and Demand Order dated 24.5.2022 and pass. IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the operation of Notice dated 24.2.2026 issued by 3rd Respondent and Demand Orders issued by 3rd Respondent vide Demand Order dated 30.5.2023 and Demand Orderdated 24.5.2022 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N BHARATH SIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 3 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.7024 of 2026

The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

The petitioner herein has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition, contending that subsequent to the notice dated 24.02.2026, issued by the 3rd respondent to the 4th respondent-Bank to freeze the bank account of the petitioner with a further direction of payment of Rs.7,01,722/- from the bank account of the petitioner to the 3rd respondent, as well as the demand orders, dated 30.05.2023 and 24.05.2022, should be set aside on the ground that the said orders do not contain any signature of the Assessing Officer.

2.

At the outset, this Court had called upon the petitioner to explain the inordinate delay in challenging the orders, dated 30.05.2023 and 24.05.2022. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the portal was not being accessed by the petitioner and that the petitioner was relying upon a Chartered Accountant to access the said portal. It is contended that on account of this delegation, the petitioner was unaware of the orders passed on 30.05.2023 and on 24.05.2022. The learned counsel would contend that, on merits, the petitioner has a clear case inasmuch as the order of assessment passed without fixture of the signature of the Assessing Officer is non est and cannot be acted upon.

4.

This Court is unable to accept the explanation of the delay given by the petitioner. The said explanation cannot be accepted as it is explained on paper with no supporting document or material for this Court to accept such a contention. The further fact that also needs to be taken into account is the fact that the returns of the petitioner were being filed only after the registration of the petitioner was cancelled. Once the orders have been uploaded on the portal and the petitioner, either by himself or through an authorized representative, continues to file returns on the portal, it would be deemed that he has clear notice of the said orders.

5.

In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the present Writ Petition is barred by latches and it is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J

Date:17.03.2026 MJA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

WRIT PETITION NO: 7024/2026 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

17.03.

2026

MJA

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.