M/S. S A Traders vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. S A Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 10.06.2026 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (the 1st respondent) for the financial year 2018-19. 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, even before the statutory appeal period expired. The petitioner indicated 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 writ petition was disposed of, leaving it open for the petitioner to pursue the appeal. The Court further directed that no coercive action, specifically the proposed auction of the immovable property, should be taken until the petitioner files the appeal. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's challenge to the impugned order itself, focusing instead on facilitating the statutory appeal process. The specific questions of law raised by the petitioner regarding the validity of the order under Section 6, 73, and 74 of the CGST/SGST Act were not adjudicated upon.
Key Issues
1. Whether the action of the 1st respondent in passing the impugned order dated 10.06.2026 for the financial year 2018-19, 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, is ultravires the CGST Act and violative of constitutional provisions (Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 265, and 300-A) and principles of natural justice. Petitioner's contentions: The impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, improper, unjust, unethical, contrary to the SGST Act, 2017, and CGST Act, without authority of law and jurisdiction, and violative of principles of natural justice and constitutional provisions. The initiation of auction proceedings for immovable property before the expiry of the appeal period is not tenable. Revenue's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment.
Sections Cited
Section 6, Section 73, Section 74, Section 79(1)(D)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya)
Heard Mr. M.V.J.K. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner who appeared through online. Also heard Mr. S.A.V. Sai Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes.
The present writ petition is filed seeking:
“….writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in passing the impugned order dated 10.06.2026 in DIN No.DIN3710062637966 for the financial year 2018-19, without there being any notification issued under Sedition 6 of the CGST Act and without determining the tax liability under Section 73 or 74
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.