M/s. Sri Mustak Shaik, Vs The Deputy Assistant Commissioner

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (CT-II) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶18

THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY (FINANCE) MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110001

¶19

2

¶20

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.12228 of 2025

¶21

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶22

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 toleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in issuing assessment order dated 6.1.2023 for the period 2019-20 to 2021-22 under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 in Form DRC -07 without affixing the signatures on the assessment orders, summary orders or the show cause notice, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and in gross violation of principles of natural justice and also declare that the order passed by the 1st Respondent dated 6.1.2023 is without jurisdiction as the assessment for the very same period i.e., 2019-20 to 2021-22 was already finalized by 2nd Respondent by order dated 22.6.2022 and set aside the same and consequently direct the authorities to refund the excess amounts paid by the Petitioner together with interest and pas

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶24

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 grant stay of recovery of the disputed demand of Rs.29,80,744/(Tax, interest and penalty of Rs. 10,33,820/-, Rs. 17,19,550/- and Rs.2,27,374/- respectively) for the tax period 2019-20 to 2021-22 under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, pending disposal of the Writ Petition as otherwise the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship.

¶25

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶26

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 receive the counter copies on record by allowing the leave petition in the above writ petition and pass

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶28

1.SRINIVASA RAO KUDUPUDI

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶30

1.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

¶31

3

¶32

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.12228 of 2025

¶33

The Court made the following Order:

¶34

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

¶35

Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Kudupudi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for the respondents.

¶36

The assessment of the petitioner, for the period 2019-20 to 202122, was finalized by the 2^nd respondent, by an order of assessment, dated 22.06.2022. Thereafter, the 1^st respondent again initiated proceedings for assessment, for the very same period, and passed another order of assessment, dated 06.01.2023.

¶37

The petitioner had initially moved an appeal against the said order, dated 06.01.2023, which came to be dismissed on the ground that the appeal had been filed beyond the period of limitation for filing of an appeal and beyond the period for which the Appellate Authority is empowered to condone.

¶38

Thereafter, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition.

¶39

It is the case of the petitioner that the 2^nd order of assessment, dated 06.01.2023, could not have been passed once an order of assessment, for the very same period, had already been passed on 22.06.2022.

¶40

4

¶41

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.12228 of 2025

¶42

The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on the other hand, would contend that the Writ Petition is not maintainable in view of the latches in approaching this Court and in view of the fact that the petitioner having availed the alternative remedy of appeal, cannot seek to challenge the impugned order, by way of the present Writ Petition.

¶43

In the normal course, we would accept the contentions of the learned Government Pleader on the ground of latches as well as the availability of alternative remedy. However, the fact remains that the Assessing Authority would become functus officio, once an order of assessment had been issued, subject to such amendments or modifications or rectifications that may be permissible for such an Assessing Authority. In such circumstances, any order of assessment passed again, for the same period, would be an order which is null and void and wholly without jurisdiction.

¶44

The defense of the 1^st respondent, as can be seen from the counter affidavit, is that the petitioner had not responded to the show-cause notices issued by the 1^st respondent and that the 1^st respondent was not aware of the earlier order of assessment, dated 22.06.2022. This defense would not suffice to get over the inherent lack of jurisdiction in the passing of the order.

¶45

5

¶46

RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.12228 of 2025

¶47