APHC010250002026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 6th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 13222 OF 2026 Between: 1. U BHARATH KUMAR REDDY OR VULAVALA BHARATH KUMAR REDDY, or Vulavala Bharath Kumar Reddy, s/o Chendrashekar Reddy, aged 42 years, Occ Business, r/o Sri Rama Nagar-2, Opp Balaji High School, Jammalamadugu, YSR Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioner AND 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, COST, Kadapa Division, II Floor, City Plaza Commercial Centre, Opp District Court, RTC Bus Stand Road, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The Commissioner of GST and Customs Appeals, D. NO. 3-30-15, Ring Road, Guntur, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh - 522006. 3. The Union of India, rep. by its Secretary (Finance), Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110001. 4. The State Bank of India, Tadipatri Road, Jammalamadugu, YSR Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh-516434,Rep. by its Branch Manager. ...Respondents 2 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly in the nature of MANDAMUS declaring that the action of the First Respondent in initiating coercive steps for recovery of Service Tax, Interest, Penalties and Late Fees pursuant to his impugned Ex-Parte Order-in-Original No. 63/2022 (S.Tax)(Adjn)-(AC), dated 23-06-2022, for the Financial Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 under the Service Tax Act (Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994), by issuing the impugned Notice to a Third Person under Section 87(b)(i) of the Finance Act, 1994 vide C.R. No. 01/2026-27, dated 16-04- 2026, to the Fourth Respondent Bank, when the Petitioner has filed Appeal No. 34/2022(T)ST against the same before the Second Respondent, and has not received any Order in the same so far, as arbitrary, capricious, unjustified and illegal and consequently set aside the same and further direct the First and Second Respondents to serve the Order-in-Appeal No. TTD- EXCUS-OOO-APP-085-2022-23, dated 27-03- 2023, said to have been passed by the Second Respondent, and further hold that the impugned Order-in-Original passed by the First Respondent which is a Single Order passed for Multiple Financial Years, which was passed by invoking the extended period of limitation under the Proviso to S. 73(1) even though it is not attracted, which was passed without serving any show cause notice or hearing notice on the Petitioner, which was passed without any basis or material but on mere assumptions, presumptions and conjectures as arbitrary, capricious, violative of the principles of natural justice, barred by limitation contrary to law and illegal and consequently set aside the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 all further proceedings, including recovery of tax, 3 interest, penalties and late fees, pursuant to the impugned Ex- Parte Order- in-Original No. 63/2022 (S.Tax) (Adjn)-(AC), dated 23-06-2022, passed by the First Respondent for the F.Y.s 2014- 15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 under the Service Tax Act, (Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994) and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2026 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 operation of the impugned “Notice to a third person under Section 87(b)(i) of the Finance Act, 1994” vide C.R. No. 01/2026-27, dated 16-04-2026, by the First Respondent to the Fourth Respondent Bank and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: G NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondents: Y N VIVEKANANDA The Court made the following order: 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION No: 13222 OF 2026 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Y.N.Vivekananda, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2. 2. Petitioner is engaged in the execution of works contract services like roads works and canal works for the local panchayat, etc, which are exempted works and not liable to service tax. Basing on the data collected from the Income Tax Department, the 1st respondent issued Show-Cause-Notice and as the petitioner failed to attend personal hearing and file objections, passed Order in Original No.63/2022 (S.Tax)(Adjn)-(AC) dated 23.06.2022 treating entire receipts reported in Income Tax Department as relating to taxable service and imposed service tax along with applicable cessess and interest, penalty on late fees. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that against the order of the 1st respondent, petitioner filed statutory appeal No.34/2022-(T)ST on 03.10.2022 before respondent No.2, by depositing 7.5% of the disputed tax towards statutory deposit and in view of the same, there is deemed stay of collection for balance tax interest etc., till the disposal of the appeal. To the utter surprise of the petitioner, learned counsel submits that the 1st respondent 5 issued notice through third person under Section 87(b)(i) of the Finance Act, 1994 dated 16.04.2026 to the 4th respondent Bank, wherein, petitioner is having Bank Account for recovery of Rs.1,51,54,527/- pursuant to the Order in Original dated 23.06.2022. On petitioner’s enquiries, he submits that appeal No.34/2022 was rejected vide order dated 27.03.2023, that the said order has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Further that a copy of the order dated 27.03.2023 was not served on the petitioner and the petitioner’s request to furnish a copy of the same had not yielded any result. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, he submits that petitioner was constrained to file present writ petition. 4. At this stage, learned counsel also submits that pursuant to earlier directions of this Court, copy of the order dated 27.03.2023 was furnished on 08.07.2026. Be that as it may. He further submits that even as per the material enclosed to the counter affidavit i.e., dispatch register for postal dak of the relevant period, it is discernable that order in appeal passed against the petitioner was returned and therefore, the contentions raised in the writ petition with regard to non-service of the said order on the petitioner stand confirmed. He also submits that as a copy of the order passed by the appellate authority dated 27.03.2023 has since been furnished pursuant to the earlier directions of this Court, an opportunity may be afforded to the petitioner to file statutory appeal against the said order by granting reasonable time to the petitioner. 6 5. Mr. Y. N. Vivekananda, learned Standing Counsel representing Department, on the other hand, sought to impress upon this Court that as the appellate order dated 27.03.2023 was sent through registered post, it is deemed to have been served on the petitioner. He refers to the relevant entries in the dispatch register referred to supra with regard to dispatch of the orders passed against the petitioner herein. He also submits that the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. 7. Though several contentions were raised in the writ petition, we are of the opinion that the same need not be examined in detail. Suffice to state that as a contention with regard to non service of copy of the order passed by the appellate authority on the petitioner was specifically raised, this Court is inclined to examine the said crucial aspect with reference to the material available on record. 8. At this stage, it may also be appropriate to refer to the averment in the counter affidavit in para No.3, which reads as follows:- “3. I further most respectfully submit that the said Registered post sent to the Petitioner vide Tracking Number- 752991000 dt: 06.04.2023 from the Office of Commissioner of CGST and Customs Appeals Commissionerate was not returned unserved.” 7 9. From the above stated averments in the counter affidavit, the stand of the Department appears to be that as the registered post sent to the petitioner is not returned unserved, it is deemed to have received by the petitioner. However, on a perusal of a copy of dispatch register, which is enclosed to the counter affidavit, the entries therein are not clear, let alone, with reference to receipt of any acknowledgement of the service of order on the petitioner. In the absence of the same, we have no other alternative except to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the appellate authority dated 27.03.2023 was not served on the petitioner. 10. In view of the conclusion arrived at by this Court and the order under appeal has now been furnished to the petitioner, it is deemed appropriate to grant thirty (30) days time from today to enable the petitioner to file an appeal against the order dated 27.03.2023. If the same is filed within the time stipulated by this Court, the appellate authority shall take up the same and pass appropriate orders, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, without reference to period of limitation. 11. Till such time the appeal is preferred as indicated above, no coercive action pursuant to the order dated 27.03.2023, shall be resorted to. 8 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J _______________ T.C.D.SEKHAR, J Note: Issue C.C. in one week. B/o. GVK 9 26 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION No. 13222 OF 2026 Dt. 06.08.2026 GVK