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 2022-23. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without a proper 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 their immovable property dated 10.06.2026, with the auction scheduled for 01.10.2026. The petitioner argued that initiating auction proceedings before the expiry of the statutory appeal period was untenable. The petitioner indicated their intention to avail the statutory remedy of appeal.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order. The Court observed that the petitioner was proposing to file an appeal. Consequently, the Court directed that no coercive action, including the proposed auction of the immovable property, shall be taken until the petitioner prefers their appeal. The Court noted that the extended period for filing the appeal was still available to the petitioner. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's contentions regarding the validity of the impugned order or the auction proceedings, as the matter was being disposed of on the premise of the petitioner availing the statutory appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 10.06.2026, passed by the Assistant Commissioner for the financial year 2022-23, is ultravires Section 6 of the CGST Act and other relevant provisions of the SGST/CGST Act, and violative of constitutional principles, for being passed without a proper notification and without determining tax liability under Sections 73 or 74. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without the requisite notification under Section 6 of the CGST Act and without determining tax liability under Sections 73 or 74 of the SGST/CGST Act, rendering it illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. They also contended that the initiation of auction proceedings for their immovable property, scheduled for 01.10.2026, even before the expiry of the period for filing an appeal, was not tenable. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent revenue authorities.