APHC010090392025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3559] WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT PETITION NO: 4927/2025 Between: 1. M/S. NEW JANATA IRON AND STEEL,, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, 10/96/1, NEAR SIVALINGAM BEEDI FACTORY AMEEN PEER ROAD, YSR DISTRICT, KADAPA, ANDHRA PRADESH - 516 001 ...PETITIONER AND 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONERST, KADAPA - II CIRCLE, KADAPA. 2. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, (REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (REVENUE)) SECRETARIAT, STATE TAX DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH- 522238 3. UNION OF INDIA, (REP. BY ITS SECRETARY (REVENUE)) NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 4. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS, GST POLICY WING, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER (GST). ...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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus, by setting aside the impugned order dated 09.01.2025 passed by 2 the 1st Respondent for the tax period 2020-21 under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 along with summary proceedings passed in Form GST DRC-07 vide Ref.No.ZD370125015341X dated 09.01.2025 as being illegal, without jurisdiction, contrary to the Rule 142 (1A) of the CGST/APGST Rules, 2017, in gross violation of principles of natural justice and judicial discipline and in violation of Articles 14, 19(1 )(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India and against the provisions of the CGST Act and set aside the demand of GST, interest thereon, and penalties imposed on the petitioner 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 grant stay on operation of the impugned order dated 09.01.2025 passed by the 1st Respondent for the tax period 2020-21 under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 along with summary proceedings passed in Form GST DRC-07 vide Ref.No.ZD370125015341X dated 09.01.2025, pending disposal of the Writ Petition as otherwise the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship and pass such other IA NO: 2 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 receive the counter copies on record by allowing the leave petition in the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Y SREENIVASA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 3 The Court made the following Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The 1st respondent had passed an order of assessment, dated 09.01.2025, for the assessment period of April 2022 – March 2021 in the case of the petitioner. 2. Aggrieved by this order of assessment, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Ms.Siri Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, in reiteration of the contentions of the petitioner, assails the impugned order on three grounds. 4. Firstly, the order of assessment went beyond the proposal made in the show cause notice frustrating the order and the same is violation of Section 75(7) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (herein after referred as ‘CGST Act’). Secondly, the show-cause notice and assessment orders were passed without issuing Form GST DRC-07 required under Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules and thirdly, Section 74 of the CGST Act was invoked without setting out any necessary ingredients of Section 74 of the act which would justified such invocation. 5. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax. 6. This Court does not propose to go into the first and third grounds raised by the learned counsel in as much as this Court in the case of M/s.New 4 Morning Star Travels vs. The Deputy Commissioner (ST) and others1 the Andhra Pradesh High Court had held that any order of assessment without issuance of notice under Rule 142(1A) would be invalid. Following the judgment, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the order of assessment dated 09.01.2025 and the matter is remitted to the 1st respondent for passing appropriate orders, after an opportunity of hearing is given to the petitioner. The period between the date of passing of the impugned order till the date of receipt of this order by the 1st respondent shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J _______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J Date 05.11.2025 KA/KSS 1 2023 (10) TMI 1246 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT PETITION NO: 4927/2025 Date 05.11.2025 KA/KSS