Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/19995/2026 of M/s. Sri Balaji Traders Vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST) on 4 August 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3543] WEDNESDAY, THE 5th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 19995/2026 Between: M/s. Sri Balaji Traders ...PETITIONER AND The
APHC010366862026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE 5th DAY OF AUGUST 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 19995/2026
Between:
M/s. Sri Balaji Traders
...PETITIONER
AND
The Assistant Commissioner St and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. G NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX
The Court made the following order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice T.C.D. Sekhar)
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the GST Act, was served with notice in Form GST ASMT-10, under Section 61 of the Act, in relation to the tax period 2023-24. Subsequently, the petitioner was issued intimation notice in Form GST DRC-01A, dated 06.05.2025, and thereafter issued notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 20.05.2025. The petitioner did not respond to the notices mentioned above. Further, the petitioner was also issued notice dated 20.06.2025, calling upon to attend for personal hearing. Even to this notice, the petitioner did not turn up. In those circumstances, the 1st respondent proceeded with the assessment as there was no objection from the petitioner and accordingly passed the assessment order dated 21.07.2025.
2. It is further case of the petitioner that, it had come to know about the passing of the assessment order dated 21.07.2025 very recently, and filed appeal before the 2nd respondent on 07.03.2026. The said appeal came to be rejected by the impugned endorsement dated 30.05.2026, on the ground that the appeal was filed with a delay of 107 days, and the 2nd respondent has no power to condone the delay beyond prescribed period under GST Act. Questioning the assessment order as well as the endorsement issued by the 2nd respondent, the present writ petition is filed.
3. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the notices issued prior to the assessment order, as well as the order was also not served on the petitioner, inasmuch as they were uploaded in the portal which cannot be treated as sufficient service under law. He would further submit that, the petitioner was unaware of the initiation of proceedings against it, as the same were uploaded in the portal, and would contend that the 1st respondent thereby violated the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as notices and the assessment order were not served through registered post as per Section 169(1)(b) of the Act.
4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Tax would submit that, making the notices and order available on the common portal is one of the recognized mode of services under Section 169(1)(d) of the Act. He would further submit that, as the notices and the assessment order were uploaded in the portal in accordance with law, the same cannot be found fault with, inasmuch as the 1st respondent had strictly followed the procedure contemplated under Section 161(d) of the Act.
5. Having considered the respective submissions made by the counsel on either side, as rightly pointed out by the Government Pleader, Section 169(1)(d) recognises service of notice and other communications through common portal. In such circumstances, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted.
6. However, keeping in view of the fact that a large number of assesses who are not technically equipped have been suffering various orders without any remedy and having considered the difficulties being faced by assesses, this Court deems it appropriate to give one more opportunity to the petitioner so as to put forth his case before the 1st respondent.
7. In the circumstances, the assessment order dated 21.07.2025 and the impugned endorsement dated 30.05.2025 are set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the 1st respondent for passing appropriate orders, after affording due opportunity to the petitioner.
8. Needless to mention, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all objections before the 1st respondent.
9. Further, this order is subject to the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The payment made by the petitioner shall abide by the result of the assessment proceedings.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
_____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
Date:05.08.2026 DSB
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR
WP No.19995 of 2026 Date 05.08.2026
U
DSB