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). 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 initiation of auction proceedings before the expiry of the statutory appeal period was not tenable. The petitioner indicated an intention to avail the statutory remedy of appeal.
Held
The Court acknowledged that the petitioner was contemplating availing 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 until the petitioner files their appeal. The Court noted that the extended period for filing the appeal was still available. The specific validity of the impugned order under Section 6, 73, or 74 of the CGST/SGST Act was not decided as the petitioner intended to pursue the statutory appeal.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 10.06.2026, passed by the 1st respondent, is ultravires Section 6 of the CGST Act and the SGST Act, 2017, for being issued without a proper notification and without determining tax liability under Sections 73 or 74 of the SGST/CGST Act? 2. Whether the initiation of auction proceedings for the petitioner's immovable property, through a notice dated 10.06.2026, is tenable when it precedes the expiry of the period available for filing a statutory appeal? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction as it was passed without a notification under Section 6 of the CGST Act and without determining tax liability under Sections 73 or 74 of the SGST/CGST Act. They further contended that the auction notice was premature and not tenable as it was issued before the statutory period for appeal had expired. The petitioner sought to set aside the impugned proceedings and prevent coercive action. Respondent's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the respondent.
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.DIN3710062691024 for the financial year 2019-20, 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 SG
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.