WP/7978/2025 of CHILLAKURU RAMA MOHAN REDDY Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER on 30 June 2026

1. CHILLAKURU RAMA MOHAN REDDY, CONTRACTOR, 505/B, SAHITI ESTATES, SARASWATHI NAGAR, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI CH. RAMA MOHAN REDDY .

...PETITIONER AND

1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, (ST) NELLORE II CIRCLE, NELLORE.

2. JOINT COMMISSIONER ST, NELLORE DIVISION, NELLORE.

3. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE (CT) DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

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

1. S SURI BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

2. The Court made the following ORDER: (Per NJS,J)

Petitioner, a proprietary concern engaged in business of Works Contract and assessee on the rolls of the 1st respondent under CGST Act, 2017 and APGST Act, 2017, bearing GSTN No.37AECPC6039F1ZT, filed the present Writ Petition aggrieved by the revision order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent for the tax period 2019-2020 in revising the assessment order.

Initially, the 1st respondent passed assessment order dated 06.02.2021 for the tax period 2019-2020, aggrieved by which the petitioner filed a writ petition and the same was disposed by an order dated 28.06.2021. Pursuant to the directions in the said writ petition, the 1st respondent passed assessment order afresh on 10.05.2022 and the petitioner paid the entire tax, interest and penalty. However, the 2nd respondent, in exercise of the powers vested in him under Section 108 of the CGST Act, issued revised show cause notice dated 20.05.2024, proposing to revise the assessment order passed by the 1st respondent. Petitioner through letter dated 26.06.2024 submitted his objections, thereafter, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order dated 29.08.2024.

Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to impress upon the Court that the impugned order is not sustainable on various grounds raised in the Writ Petition. Though he seeks to argue the matter in more detail, keeping in view the statutory appeal provision against the order under Section 108 of the CGST Act and also in view of the functioning of the Tribunal, this Court is not inclined to examine the merits or otherwise of the various contentions raised in the Writ Petition. This Court deems it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to avail remedy of Appeal.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that six (06) weeks time may be granted for the petitioner to file the Appeal under Section 112 of the Act. He also submits that the Order dated 02.04.2025, directing petitioner to deposit 10% of the disputed tax as a condition precedent for granting stay of collection of tax and other amounts pursuant to the impugned revisional order has been complied with.

In the aforesaid circumstances the Writ Petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to file Appeal against the revisional order within a period of six (06) weeks from today. No costs.

Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. NINALA JAYASURYA,J

T.C.D.SEKHAR,J Date:01.07.2026. Ssv

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

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

WRIT PETITION NO: 7978 OF 2025 Date:01.07.2026. Ssv