WP/18186/2026 of Usha Sankar Constructions Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 7 July 2026

1. USHA SANKAR CONSTRUCTIONS, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER - SRI BANKURU SANKARA JOGINAIDU, DOOR.NO. 3-44, VELAMA STREET, GEDDATIRUVADA VILLAGE- 535525, JIYYAMMAVALASA MANDAL, PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 37AAEFU2936P1ZJ

...PETITIONER AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (CT-II), SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI- 522237, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, VIJAYA ELITE KUNCHANAPALLI-522501, ADJ. SERVICE ROAD TO NH-16,GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH

3. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER ST, VIZIANAGARAM DIVISION, KOPPU GURANNA BUILDING, VIZIANAGARAM-535001, ANDHRA PRADESH.

4. THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST, PARVATHIPURAM CIRCLE, PARVATHIPURAM-535501, MANYAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA

PRADESH.

...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. C SANJEEVA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Writ Petition No:18186 of 2026 The Court made the following Order: (per NJS,J)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through online. Also heard Mr. Mannam Venkata Krishna Rao, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax.

2. Challenging the Assessment Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 26.04.2024 passed by respondent No.4 for the tax period April, 2018 to March, 2019, the present writ petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions to the effect that the petitioner, who is engaged in the business of works contract services, is residing in a remote village, completely depending on a part-time accountant for carrying out business operations. He submits that the petitioner is not aware of the Login credentials and is not conversant with the system/computer related transactions and issuance of show cause notice before passing the impugned order, therefore, was not within the petitioner’s knowledge. He further submits that respondent No.4 has not afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as mandated under Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short “the Act”) and on that ground alone, writ petition is liable to be allowed.

4. That apart, referring to the material filed along with the writ petition i.e., Summary Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 26.04.2024, he submits that the concerned officer has not affixed his signature on the said order, it is without DIN. Even in the light of the decisions rendered by this Court, the Assessment Order is liable to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader made submissions to sustain the impugned order by contending that though electronic generated

Document Identification Number (DIN) was not mentioned in the impugned order, Unique Identification Number is given, therefore, contention contrary is not tenable.

6. He also submits that the Assessment Order was passed as long back as in the year 2024; no explanation is forth coming as to the delay in filing of the present writ petition. Further that petitioner has a remedy of appeal and instead of availing the same, he filed present writ petition and the same cannot be entertained.

7. We have considered the submissions made and perused material on record.

8. Though learned counsel for the petitioner sought to impress upon the Court that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground of no signature in the Summary Order, the fact remains that in the Assessment Order dated 26.04.2024, the signature of the concerned officer was affixed. Be that as it may. So far as contention with regard to Section 75(4) of the Act, is concerned, we find merit in the same.

9. Section 75(4) of the Act, contemplates that “an opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person”.

10. In the present case, as is seen from the impugned order dated 26.04.2026, there is no reference as to issuance of any notice of hearing in tune with second limb of Section 75(4) of the Act i.e., affording an opportunity of being heard in the event of taking an adverse decision by the Assessing/Proper officer. Therefore, the order under challenge is invalid and unsustainable. Hence, the same is set aside.

11. Accordingly, Writ petition is allowed. The Assessing Officer/respondent No.4 is at liberty to issue fresh show cause notice to the petitioner and proceed with the Assessment Proceedings in accordance with law.

12. However, considering the submissions made by learned Government Pleader that the Assessment Order was passed on 26.04.2024, while considering the reason for the delay, it is deemed appropriate to direct the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within six (06) weeks from today.

No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

_____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Date:08.07.2026 Ksj

Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No