Neeruganti Ramesh vs. The Chief Commissioner Of State Tax

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the 1st respondent-Chief Commissioner of State Tax to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.12.2021. This consideration is to be done in terms of Section 80 of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and as early as possible in accordance with law. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's objections to the assessment order itself, nor did it make a finding on the alleged illegality and arbitrariness of the assessment order. The primary focus was on directing the authority to consider the representation for payment of outstanding tax. The ratio decidendi is that representations for payment of tax dues should be considered by the competent authority in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions, specifically Section 80 in this case.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 15.09.2021 passed by the 3rd respondent, alleging it was illegal and arbitrary for not considering their objections. The petitioner's primary request was for a direction to the 1st respondent, the Chief Commissioner of State Tax, to consider their representation dated 28.12.2021, which sought time for payment of the outstanding tax amount. The revenue, represented by the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, opposed the petition but agreed that the authorities should consider the petitioner's application in terms of Section 80 of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 15.09.2021, passed by the 3rd respondent, is illegal and arbitrary for failing to consider the petitioner's objections, as per the petitioner's contention. 2. Whether a direction should be issued to the 1st respondent-Chief Commissioner of State Tax to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.12.2021 seeking time for payment of outstanding tax, in accordance with Section 80 of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as argued by the petitioner. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed without considering their objections and sought a direction for the consideration of their representation for payment time. Revenue's arguments: The revenue opposed the writ petition but submitted that the authorities should consider the petitioner's application in terms of Section 80 of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.