M/s. Sri Mustak Shaik v. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner
WP/12228/2025 · 2026-02-04
R Raghunandan Rao, T C D Sekhar
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 20553 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 20553 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010229452025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 12228/2025 Between:
1. M/S. SRI MUSTAK SHAIK,, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SHAIK MUSTAK SUBHASH ROAD, GANDIKOTA, KANIGIRI PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH
...PETITIONER AND
1. THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, (STATE TAXES)-I STATE AUDIT TEAM-2, ONGOLE CIRCLE, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STATE TAXES, ONGOLE CIRCLE, ONGOLE ANDHRA PRADESH
3. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER STATE TAXES, APPELLATE AUTHORITY, TIRUPATI ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. STATE BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER KANIGIRI BRANCH, KANDKURU ROAD, KANIGIRI PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH
5. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (CT-II) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 6. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY (FINANCE) MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110001
2 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.12228 of 2025
...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 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 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 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.
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. 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. SRINIVASA RAO KUDUPUDI Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX
3 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.12228 of 2025
The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Kudupudi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for the respondents. 2. The assessment of the petitioner, for the period 2019-20 to 2021- 22, was finalized by the 2nd respondent, by an order of assessment, dated
22.06.2022. Thereafter, the 1st respondent again initiated proceedings for assessment, for the very same period, and passed another order of assessment, dated 06.01.2023. 3. 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. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that the 2nd 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. 4 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.12228 of 2025
6. 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. 7.
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. 8. The defense of the 1st respondent, as can be seen from the counter affidavit, is that the petitioner had not responded to the show-cause notices issued by the 1st respondent and that the 1st 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. 5 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.12228 of 2025
9. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the order of assessment, dated 06.01.2023, passed by the 1st respondent. 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: 05.02.2026 MJA
6 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.12228 of 2025
15
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 12228/2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
05.02.2026
MJA