S A Traders vs. The Assistant Commissioner(St)
Facts
The petitioner, 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 2020-21. 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 disposed of the writ petition, leaving it open for the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order. The Court directed that no coercive action, including the proposed auction of the immovable property, should be taken against the petitioner until such time as an appeal is preferred. The Court noted that the extended period for filing the appeal under the statute was still available to the petitioner. The specific contentions regarding the validity of the order under Section 6, 73, or 74 of the CGST/SGST Act were not adjudicated upon as the matter was disposed of on the petitioner's intention to file an appeal.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 10.06.2026, passed by the Assistant Commissioner for the financial year 2020-21, is ultravires Section 6 of the CGST Act and other relevant provisions of the SGST Act, 2017, and CGST Act, and violative of constitutional provisions, due to the alleged absence of a notification under Section 6 and improper determination of tax liability under Sections 73 or 74. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the order was passed without the requisite notification under Section 6 of the CGST Act and without proper determination of tax liability under Sections 73 or 74 of the SGST/CGST Act, rendering it illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. The petitioner also contended that the initiation of auction proceedings for immovable property before the expiry of the appeal period was untenable. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent revenue authorities.
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.DIN3710062682065 for the financial year 2020-21, without there being any notification issued under Sedition 6 of the CGST Act and without determining the tax liability under Section 73 or 74 of the SGS
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.