M/s. Sri Shakthi Communications, Vs The Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes

M/S. SRI SHAKTHI COMMUNICATIONS,, REPRESENTED BY SHRI GADILINGANA GOWD YEMMIGANUR, ITS PROPRIETOR. 81 17 D, RAMRAHIM NAGAR, KURNOOL, ANDHRA PRADESH, 518003.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES, KURNOOL-LLL CIRCLE, KURNOOL DIVISION, BESIDE INDUS SCHOOL, GOOTY ROAD, KURNOOL -518002.

¶15

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT (COMMERCIAL TAX), A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELEGAPUDI.

¶16

UNION OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (REVENUE), NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI.

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toPleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order quashing the proceedings of the 1st Respondent in the issuance of show cause notice dated 01.07.2023 and Assessment Order passed vide DIN No. DIN3729122315748 (Annexure P-1) (hereinafter referred to as 'demand order') dated 28.12.2023 for the period from FY 2017- 18, without the issuance of the mandatory tax intimation notice in

¶19

2

¶20

form DRC-01A under Rule 142(1A) of the COST Rules. 2017 as arbitrary, unconstitutional, unreasonable, and in violation of the principles of natural justice. B. And to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased stay the operation of the proceedings of the 1st Respondent in Demand Order issued vide DIN No. Assessment Order passed vide DIN No. DIN3729122315748 dated 28.12.2023 for the FY 2017-18, in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to order amendment of main prayer in WP No. 8150 of 2025 as below- “For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is prayed that: - A. The Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order quashing the proceedings of the 1®* Respondent in the issuance of show cause notice dated 01.07.2023 and Assessment Order passed vide DIN No. DIN3729122315748 (Annexure P-1) (hereinafter referred to as „demand order‟) dated 28.12.2023 for the period from FY 2017-18, without the issuance of the mandatory tax intimation notice in form DRC01A under Rule 142(1 A) of the CGST Rules, 2017 as arbitrary, unconstitutional, unreasonable, and in violation of the principles of natural justice. B. The Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order directing the 1®* Respondent to allow the Petitioner to amend the GSTR-3B return filed for November‟2017 as per the Judgement of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs vs Aberdare Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (2025) 29 Centax 10 (S.C.), accordingly direct the 1®* Respondent to conduct a fresh assessment based on the amended return filed for the tax period November‟2017. C. And to pass such other orders or further orders as the Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” instead of “For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is prayed that a. The Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order quashing the proceedings of the 1®* Respondent in the issuance of show cause notice dated 01.07.2023 and Assessment Order passed vide DIN No. DIN3729122315748 (Annexure P-1) (hereinafter referred to as „demand order‟) dated 28.12.2023 for the period from FY 2017-18, without the issuance of the mandatory tax intimation notice in form DRC-01A under Rule 142(1 A) of the COST

¶23

3

¶24

Rules, 2017 as arbitrary, unconstitutional, unreasonable, and in violation of the principles of natural justice, And to pass IA NO: 3 OF 2025

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to permit the Petitioner to file the additional affidavit and the Hon‟ble Court may be peruse as a part and parcel of the Writ Petition.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶27

1.ANIL KUMAR BEZAWADA

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶29

1.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

¶30

The Court made the following order:

¶31

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

¶32

The petitioner which is in the business of sale and marketing of cell phones had been registered with GST Department under the GST regime. However, the registration of the petitioner was cancelled by an order, dated 20.07.2023, on the ground of non-furnishing of GST returns for a continuous period of six months.

¶33

In a parallel proceeding, the 1^st respondent had initiated proceedings under Section 73 of the GST Act, 2017, by way of a show cause notice, dated 01.07.2023, proposing to reverse certain input tax credits granted to the petitioner along with interest and penalty under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017. After granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the 1^st respondent passed a demand order, dated 28.12.2023, for the period 2017-2018 raising claim for tax of

¶34

4

¶35

Rs.1,95,36,841/-, interest for delayed payment of tax, under Section 50 of the CGST Act, for a sum of Rs.2,01,07,423/-, and penalty amount of Rs.19,53,684/- under Section 73(1).

¶36

The petitioner being aggrieved by this order, has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition.

¶37

The primary grounds raised by the petitioner are that necessary show cause notice under Section 142(1)(A) of the CGST Act had not been issued prior to the commencement of the proceedings culminating in the demand order. Secondly, the demand order as well as the show cause notices were issued after the expiry of period of limitation under Section 73(10) and 70(2) of the GST Act. Apart from this, the petitioner also claims that there is violation of principles of natural justice as adequate opportunity was not given to the petitioner.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner would draw the attention of this Court to the judgments of this Court, dated 12.02.2025, in W.P.No.35710 of 2022, the judgment dated 05.03.2025 in W.P.No.3480 of 2021 and batch and the judgment reported in 2023 (12 Centax 198 (AP) in the case of New Morning Star Travels vs. Deputy Commissioner . In these judgments, this Court had taken the view that non-issuance of a notice under Section 142(1)(A) for any assessment

¶39

5

¶40

period prior to the amendment of Section 142(1)(A) carried out on 15.10.2020 would render any assessment proceedings invalid.

¶41

In the present case, it was not disputed by the Revenue that no such notice under Section 142(1)(A) had come to be served on the petitioner prior to the assessment proceedings being taken up.

¶42

In the circumstances, following the aforesaid judgments of this Court, the demand order, dated 28.12.2023, requires to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.

¶43

The Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the demand order, dated 28.12.2023, and remanding the matter back to the assessing authority for completing the assessment after following the necessary procedure set out under the provisions of the GST as well as the rules made thereunder. Needless to say, the period between the date of the passing of the impugned order till the receipt of this order shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶44

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶45

_______________________ R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO,J

¶46

___________________ SUMATHI JAGADAM,J RJS

¶47

6

¶48

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶49

HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM