BharatTaxGST

M/S. Chaitanya Infra Private Limited vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of State Taxes

Original PDF →
WP/26039/2026HC Andhra PradeshGSTCNR APHC01047731202610 September 2026Bench: NINALA JAYASURYA,T.C.D.SEKHAR7 pages

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
APHC010477312026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE 11th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 26039 OF 2026 Between: 1. M/s. Chaitanya Infra Private Limited,, Represented by its Director, Smt. Padmasri Gannamani, Door No. 8-1-69/4, Floor-4, GV Square, Union Bank Building, Peda Waltair Junction, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, 530017. ...Petitioner AND 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam I Division, O/o JC(ST), Visakhapatnam -1 Division, Commercial Tax Office Building, Opp. Q1 Hospital, Chinagadhili, Arilova, Visakhapatnam - 530 040. 2. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes, Siripuram Circle, Visakhapatnam -1 Division, D.No.8-1-63/10, 2nd Floor, Mehar Plaza, Nowka Nagar, Near Polamamba Temple, Peda Waltair, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh - 530 017. 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Commercial Tax), A.P. Secretariat, Velegapudi - 522 238. 4. Union of India, Department of Revenue, Represented by its Secretary (Revenue), North Block, New Delhi - 110 001. 2 ...Respondents 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 toissue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ, direction or order A. Quashing the proceedings of the Respondent by way of passing of the impugned assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 vide Ref No. ZD370525004813H dated 05.05.2025 (hereinafter referred to as 'impugned demand order') (Annexure P-1), for the period from April 2022 to March 2023, without effective service of the Show Cause Notice and the Impugned Demand Order (Served oniy in GSTN Portal) as being arbitrary, without jurisdiction, unconstitution al, unreasonable, in violation of principles of Natural Justice and contrary to the provisions of the GST Act, 2017, and the rules made thereunder and is violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India. B. Consequently, quash the recovery proceedings initiated by way of issuance of notice in Form GST DRC 13 vide DIN No. 3729082680043 dated 29.08.2026, for attaching the bank account of the petitioner, in respect of the demands confirmed vide the impugned demand

order. Counsel for the Petitioner: ANIL KUMAR BEZAWADA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following order:

3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 26039 OF 2026

ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya)

Heard Mr.P. Girish Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.A.V. Sai Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the GST Act, was served with notice in Form GST ASMT-10 dated 08.03.2024, under Section 61 of the Act, in relation to the tax period 2022-23 and the petitioner did not respond to the notice mentioned above. Subsequently, the petitioner was also issued Show- Cause-Notice dated 16.12.2024, calling for objections and even to this notice, the petitioner did not turn up. In those circumstances, the 1st respondent proceeded with the assessment as there was no objection from the petitioner and accordingly passed the assessment order dated 05.05.2025. 3. It is case of the petitioner that due to transition in persons responsible for monitoring statutory compliances because of change in Management during the period of October 2024 and also death of Senior Accountant on 06.11.2024, passing of the assessment order dated 05.05.2025 was not in the knowledge of the petitioner. Therefore, the said assessment order could not be questioned immediately, though it is legally not sustainable.

4

4.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contends that the notices issued prior to the assessment order, as well as the order was also not served on the petitioner, inasmuch as they were uploaded in the portal which cannot be treated as sufficient service under law. He would further submit that the petitioner was unaware of the initiation of proceedings against it, as the same were uploaded in the portal, and would contend that the 1st respondent thereby violated the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as notices and the assessment order were not served through registered post or mail as per Section 169(1) of the CGST Act.

5.

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that, making the notices and order available on the common portal is one of the recognized mode of services under Section 169(1)(d) of the Act. He would further submit that, as the notices and the assessment order were uploaded in the portal in accordance with law, the same cannot be found fault with, inasmuch as the 1st respondent had strictly followed the procedure contemplated under Section 161(d) of the Act.

6.

Having considered the respective submissions made by the counsel on either side, as rightly pointed out by the Assistant Government Pleader, Section 169(1)(d) recognizes service of notice and other communications through common portal. In such circumstances, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted.

5

7.

However, keeping in view of the fact that a large number of assessees who are not technically equipped have been suffering various orders without any remedy and having considered the difficulties being faced by assessees on the earlier occasions, this Court felt it appropriate to give one more opportunity to the assessees, considering the factual aspects. In the present case, the reasons for not availing the opportunity is set out in the affidavit. Considering the same, we are inclined to dispose of the matter, with the consent of both sides.

8.

Accordingly, the assessment order dated 05.05.2025 is set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the 1st respondent for passing appropriate orders, after affording due opportunity to the petitioner.

9.

Needless to mention, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all objections before the 1st respondent.

10.

Further, this order is subject to the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax, within a period of six (06) weeks, from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The payment made by the petitioner shall abide by the result of the assessment proceedings.

11.

In view of setting aside of impugned order, all consequential proceedings shall stand revoked.

6

12.

No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J

_______________ T.C.D.SEKHAR, J

GVK

7

241 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

WRIT PETITION No. 26039 OF 2026

Dt. 11.09.2026

GVK

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.