M/S. Bakshi Motors vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)
Held
The High Court, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, observed that the petitioner had filed the writ petition against the impugned assessment order without availing the alternative remedy available to him. Therefore, the Court was inclined to dispose of the writ petition by affording the petitioner an opportunity to approach the appellate authority. The Court did not decide on the legality or validity of the assessment order itself, nor did it delve into the specific grounds raised by the petitioner regarding arbitrariness, jurisdiction, procedure, or natural justice. The primary decision was based on the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.
Facts
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an Assessment cum penalty cum Interest Order in Form DRC-07, dated November 19, 2022, passed by the first respondent. This order pertains to the tax periods from 2017-18 up to January 2021, under the IGST, CGST, and SGST Acts, 2017. The petitioner contended that the order was arbitrary, without jurisdiction, contrary to procedure, illegal, and violative of natural justice. The petitioner sought to have this order set aside. The High Court heard arguments from both the petitioner's counsel and the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned Assessment cum penalty cum Interest Order in Form DRC-07, dated 19.11.2022, passed by the first respondent for the tax periods 2017-18 to 2020-21 (upto January, 2021) is arbitrary, without jurisdiction, contrary to procedure, contrary to law, violative of the principles of natural justice, discriminatory, and not sustainable. Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was arbitrary, without jurisdiction, contrary to procedure, contrary to law, violative of natural justice, discriminatory, and unsustainable. The petitioner sought to have the order set aside. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Revenue or State. However, the court noted that the petitioner had filed the writ petition without availing the alternative remedy available.
Sections Cited
IGST Act, 2017, CGST Act, 2017, SGST Act, 2017
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.40066 OF 2022 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice U.Durga Prasad Rao)
In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring that the impugned Assessment cum penalty cum Interest Order in Form DRC-07, vide RC.AEO-A5/GSTINS/01/2021, DT.19.11.2022, passed by the first respondent for the Tax Periods 2017-18 to 2020- 21 (upto January, 2021), under the IGST, CGST and SGST Acts, 2017, is arbitrary, without jurisdiction, contrary to procedure, contrary to law, violative of the principles of natural justice, discriminatory, not sustainable and illegal and consequently set aside the same and to pass such other orders.
Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for commercial Taxes.
Having found that the petitioner filed this writ petition against the impugned assessment order without availing the alternative remedy available to him, without
expressing our view on the merits of the case, we are inclined to dispose of the writ petition affording opportunity to the petitioner to a
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.