M/S. S A Traders vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. S A Traders, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging an order dated 10.06.2026 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (respondent). The order pertains to the financial year 2017-18. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without a notification under Section 6 of the CGST Act and without determining tax liability under Section 73 or 74 of the SGST/CGST Act. The petitioner also received a notice of auction for immovable property dated 10.06.2026, with the auction scheduled for 01.10.2026, even before the statutory appeal period expired. The petitioner expressed an intention to avail the statutory remedy of appeal.

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner intended to avail the statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order. Given this intention, the Court disposed of the writ petition, leaving it open for the petitioner to pursue the appeal. The Court also directed that no coercive action, specifically the proposed auction of the immovable property, should be taken against the petitioner until such time as the appeal is preferred. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's arguments regarding the validity of the order or the auction proceedings, as the primary focus was on facilitating the statutory appeal process. The issue of whether the order was ultravires Section 6 of the CGST Act and whether tax liability was correctly determined under Sections 73 or 74 was implicitly deferred to the appellate authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondent in passing the impugned order dated 10.06.2026 for the financial year 2017-18 is ultravires Section 6 of the CGST Act, as it was allegedly passed without a proper notification and without determining tax liability under Section 73 or 74 of the SGST/CGST Act? 2. Whether the initiation of proceedings for auction of immovable property, prior to the expiry of the period available for preferring a statutory appeal, is tenable? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without proper authorization under Section 6 of the CGST Act and without following the prescribed procedure under Sections 73 or 74 of the SGST/CGST Act. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the auction notice for immovable property, issued before the statutory appeal period expired, was premature and not tenable. The petitioner relied on the principles of natural justice and constitutional provisions including Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 265, and 300-A. Respondent's contentions: The judgment records no specific contentions from the respondent.