Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Suryan Granites, a proprietorship concern represented by its proprietor Mugilaiah Chandrababu of Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati seeking to quash a show cause notice bearing Reference No. INS/AC(ST)/CTR-II/09 dated 04.12.2022, issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Chittoor-II Circle. The petitioner alleged the notice was illegal, arbitrary, violated principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution, and contravened the GST Act and Rules. An interlocutory application under Section 151 CPC sought a stay of further proceedings pursuant to the notice. By the time the matter reached hearing on 10.10.2023, the second respondent had already passed the assessment order dated 15.11.2022.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the impugned show cause notice, having since culminated in an assessment order, remained amenable to challenge in the writ petition, or whether the petitioner should instead pursue the statutory remedy against the assessment order.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Originally contended that the show cause notice was issued in violation of natural justice and the GST Act and Rules, and sought its quashing along with a stay of further proceedings.
  • On being informed at the hearing that the assessment order had already been passed, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would instead challenge that assessment order through the appropriate statutory remedy.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax placed on record a copy of the assessment order dated 15.11.2022, demonstrating that the show cause notice had already merged into a final assessment before the writ petition came up for hearing.

Court Order/Findings

  • Recorded that since the assessment order had already been passed before the writ petition was taken up, the challenge to the antecedent show cause notice had become infructuous.
  • Closed the writ petition as infructuous, granting the petitioner liberty to pursue the course of action available under law against the assessment order dated 15.11.2022.
  • Directed no order as to costs, and closed all pending interlocutory applications as a sequel.

Important Clarification

  • A writ challenge to a show cause notice ordinarily becomes infructuous once the department has already passed the final assessment order on the same subject matter — the appropriate course thereafter is to challenge the assessment order itself through the statutory appellate mechanism, not to continue attacking the superseded notice.
  • Courts routinely preserve the petitioner's substantive remedy by granting express liberty to proceed against the assessment order, so closure on this technical ground does not amount to a decision on merits either way.

Sections Involved

  • Article 226, Constitution of India — writ jurisdiction invoked to challenge the show cause notice, held to have become infructuous.
  • GST Act and Rules (State enactment) — the substantive provisions alleged to have been violated by the show cause notice; not separately adjudicated.
  • Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — inherent powers invoked for the interlocutory stay application, closed along with the main petition.

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of with directions, in part in favour of the Assessee — the writ petition itself was closed without a finding on merits, but the petitioner was expressly left free to challenge the assessment order dated 15.11.2022 through the statutory remedy, preserving its substantive rights.

Related Case Laws

No directly on-point case notes are currently published on this site.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
  • Case No.: Writ Petition No.41890 of 2022
  • CNR: Not available on record
  • Coram: Hon'ble Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao and Hon'ble Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu
  • Decision Date: 10-10-2023
  • Disposal Nature: Closed as infructuous; liberty granted to challenge the assessment order through statutory remedy

Link to Download the Order

Download the full judgment (PDF)

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.