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

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. S A Traders, filed a writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging an order dated 10.06.2026 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (1st respondent) for the financial year 2021-22. 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 of immovable property dated 10.06.2026, with the auction scheduled for 01.10.2026. The petitioner argued that this auction initiation was premature, occurring 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, including 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 decide on the merits of the petitioner's contentions regarding the validity of the order or the auction proceedings, as the matter was being remitted to the appellate forum. The issue of costs was not addressed, with the Court stating there would be no order as to costs.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 10.06.2026, passed by the Assistant Commissioner for the financial year 2021-22, is ultravires Section 6 of the CGST Act and the SGST Act, 2017, for being passed without a specific notification and without determining tax liability under Section 73 or 74 of the SGST/CGST Act? 2. Whether the initiation of auction proceedings for the petitioner's immovable property, via notice dated 10.06.2026, is tenable when it precedes the expiry of the statutory period available for filing an appeal? Petitioner's arguments: 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 their property was issued prematurely, before the statutory appeal period had ended, rendering it illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner stated their intention to pursue the statutory appeal remedy. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent revenue authorities.