WP/2265/2026 of M/S. R.P. ENGINEERING WORKS Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, on 22 July 2026

1. M V J K KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

The Court made the following order: (per The Hon’ble Sri Justice T.C.D.Sekhar)

The petitioner is a registered dealer under GST Act from 26.10.2017, having opted for payment of tax at composition rate in terms of Section 10 of CGST Act.

2. Aggrieved by order of assessment dated 17.12.2024, the present writ petition is filed on various grounds. The counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dr.M.V.K.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, inter-alia contends that based on the data received from the Chief Commissioner GST Monitoring Committee, a show cause notice dated 20.08.2024 was issued to the petitioner calling for objections as to why assessment shall not be undertaken as there are discrepancies in the returns of the petitioner. He would further submit that the data collected against the petitioner was not submitted so as to issue suitable reply to the show cause notice. Subsequently, despite issuance of personal hearing notices dated 18.11.2024 and 30.11.2024, the petitioner could not appear before the 2nd respondent. As there was no response from the petitioner, the 2nd respondent proceeded with the assessment and accordingly passed impugned order dated 17.12.2024 raising demand of

Rs.48,84,730/-. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed.

3. Sri Dr.M.V.K.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel strenuously contends that, in order to give objections to the show cause notice, the authorities ought to have given the data collected by the Chief Commissioner GST Monitoring Committee. He would further submit that in the absence of material he could not file objections before the assessing authority. Further, during the course of hearing, he would submit that though the petitioner was served copy of the impugned order on 24.12.2024, the petitioner could not file appeal before the appellate authority as the deponent suddenly fell sick as he was bed ridden.

4. On the other hand, the Assistant Government Pleader, Sri S.A.V.Sai Kumar, would submit that the order under challenge was passed after following the procedure contemplated under law and despite issuing notices calling the petitioner for personal hearing, the same was not availed. He would further submit that the order under challenge was passed on 17.12.2024, having received the same on 24.12.2024, the petitioner did not take steps to question the same. He would further submit that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on laches, as there is inordinate delay in approaching this Court.

5. It is not in dispute that before passing the order under challenge, the authorities have followed the procedure contemplated under law. It is also not in dispute that having received the order under challenge, the petitioner failed to take steps. However, a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition would show that the deponent was unwell for some time and he was advised to take bed rest. In order to substantiate the same, copies of medical certificates were filed along with the writ petition. Keeping in view of the fact that a large number of assesses are approaching this Court on various grounds including the ground of ailment.

6. Further, taking into consideration of the difficulties faced by the assesses in approaching this Court, with a view to provide adequate opportunity to such assesses, by balancing the interest of the revenue and the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 17.12.2024 be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the 1st respondent for passing appropriate orders after due opportunity is given to the petitioner.

It is left open to the petitioner to raise all objections that it may choose.

7. It is made clear that this order is subject to the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax within a period of six (06) weeks from today. Further, such payment shall abide by the result of the assessment proceedings.

8. Further, the 2nd respondent is directed to furnish all relevant information including the data collected from the Chief Commissioner GST Monitoring Committee so as to enable the petitioner to give objections.

9. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

_____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

Dt.23.07.2026 DSB

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR

WP No.2265 of 2026 Date 23.07.2026

U

DSB