APHC010305842025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 15318/2025 Between: 1. M/S. ALLURE HAIR PRODUCTS PVT LTD,, A-14 SIDCO INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MMDA COLONY,ARUMBAKKAM, CHENNAI - TAMIL NADU- 600106 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR P. SATHISH GANDHI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STII, TIRUPATI CIRCLE - II, TIRUPATI, ANDHRA PRADESH, 2. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (CT) DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESCENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, 4TH FLOOR, A-WING, SHASTRIBHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110001. 4. THE CHIEF MANAGER, CANARA BANK, SPENCE PLAZA BRANCH, CHENNAI -600002. TAMIL NADU. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 tomay be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction 2 preferably a Writ in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring action the 1st Respondent in not serving the show cause notice, assessment order or any other notices on the Petitioner and freezing the bank account of the Petitioner with the 4th Respondent Bank pursuant to the instructions received from the office of the 1st Respondent under notice to a third person under section 79(1 )(c) and marking the lien to the sum of Rs. 14,54,050/- in the Petitioner Bank account without referring the said liability relates to which assessment period and under which Act the said liability was created as illegal, arbitrary, improper, unjust, unfair, contrary to the Principles of Natural Justice, viol ative of articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 265 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the lien created by the Respondent No.4 bank and to direct the 4th Respondent Bank to release the line of the petitioner Bank account enabling the petitioner to do the business operations from his Bank Account and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 DIRECT the Respondent No. 4 to release the lien of the Petitioner Bank account enabling the Petitioner to do the business operations from his Bank Account and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M V J K KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 3 The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri M. V. J. K. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the attachment of the bank account of the petitioner, at the request of the 1st respondent. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the recovery proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner without serving the order of the assessment or the order of the penalty, passed under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 [for short “the APVAT Act”], for the year 2013- 2014 to 2016-2017. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submits that the order of assessment, dated 07.08.2017, came to be passed in relation to the assessment year 2013-2014 to 2016-2017. He would also submit that an order of penalty was also passed subsequently on 30.06.2018. He also submits that there is no material available to demonstrate or show that the order of assessment had been served on the petitioner. However, he would submit that the said order had been uploaded on the portal. He would also submit that the order of penalty was affixed to the wall of the business premises of the petitioner. 4 5. As the order of assessment itself had not been served on the petitioner, it would clearly not be permissible for the respondents to attach the bank account of the petitioner or to initiate any coercive steps for recovery of any amounts demanded under the said order of assessment. 6. However, the assessment order remains and the respondents would be entitled to recover their money. 7. In the view of this contradiction, it would be appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition by directing the 1st respondent to serve a copy of the order of the assessment dated 07.08.2017 and the order of the penalty, dated 30.06.2018, on the petitioner, within one week. Thereafter, it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the said order of assessment and the order of penalty, within the time available under the provisions of the APVAT Act and the Rules made thereunder. The said time shall commence only from the date of service of the orders by the 1st respondent, on the petitioner. 8. Any coercive measures for recovery of tax or penalty, would have to abide by the orders in appeal, that may be filed by the petitioner, and any interlocutory orders that may be obtained by the petitioner in the said appeals or any other proceedings. 9. It is also made clear that it is always open to the respondents to initiate recovery proceedings if no appeal is filed by the petitioner, within the time available under the Act. 5 10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J _________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J Date: 08.04.2026 BSM 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 15318 of 2025 Date: 08.04.2026 BSM