M/S. Ballavari Maheswara Reddy vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)-Ii

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions to the effect that the petitioner, is a Civil Contractor executing works for various Government Departments and due to lack of knowledge of GST portal activities, issuance of separate show cause notices dated 27.02.2023 for all the tax periods before passing the impugned orders, therefore, were not within the petitioner’s knowledge. He further submits that respondent No.1 has not afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as mandated under Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short “the Act”) and on that ground alone, writ petition is liable to be allowed.

That apart, referring to the material filed along with the writ petition i.e., Summary Orders in Form GST DRC-07 dated 18.05.2023, he submits that the concerned officer has not affixed his signature on the said orders, it is without DIN, as such, lacks legal efficacy. He also relies on the decision of this Court in SRK Enterprises reported in (2023) 13 Centax 60 (A.P.) (W.P No.29397 of 2023 dated 10.11.2023). He also submits that petitioner, even on merits, has a good case, hence, urges for allowing the writ petition.

On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader refutes the contention insofar as following the procedure contemplated under Rule 142(1A) of the Central Rules i.e., with regard to issuance of notice prior to finalizing the assessment. He also submits that the petitioner having received the notices failed to submit reply and Assessment Orders were passed long back i.e., on 18.05.2023, no explanation is forth coming as to the delay in filing the present writ petition.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader, however, contends that even before the Appellate Authority, the petitioner failed to appear on more than four (04) occasions. He submits that this itself shows that the petitioner is not prudent in pursuing the remedy of appeal effectively. He also submits that even against the order of Appellate Authority, the petitioner has statutory remedy of further appeal.

We have considered the submissions made and perused material on record.

At the outset, it may be appropriate to mention that though learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even on merits, petitioner has got a good case, we are not inclined to examine the same more particularly, since writ petition is otherwise deserves to be allowed on the ground of unsigned Assessment Orders by respondent No.1 for tax periods i.e., July, 2017-March, 2018; April, 2018 to March, 2019; April, 2019 to March, 2020 and April, 2020 to March, 2021. 9. Though learned Assistant Government Pleader, on oral instructions, has submitted that a prior notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the Assessment Order in question, at this stage, we deem it not necessary to examine the matter by inviting counter-affidavit. Even otherwise, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned Assessment Orders dated 18.05.2023 are unsigned merits acceptance. Be that as it may.

The order under challenge is not sustainable and the same is set aside in view of the decision in W.P No.29397 of 2023 dated 10.11.2023, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:

As the Order-in-Original itself is not valid in the eye of law, the Appellate Order dated 17.04.2026 confirming the same is also unsustainable. Accordingly, orders impugned in the writ petition are set aside, however subject to condition of the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax for each Assessment Year within a period of six (06) weeks from today.

Needless to observe that amount, if any, deposited by the petitioner shall be given credit to. Respondent No.1 is at liberty to pass appropriate orders, after issuing separate notices for different tax periods and affording opportunity to the petitioner, in accordance with law.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.