Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Sri. Siddamreddy Jaffar Reddy, President of the Water Users Association, Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh, represented by Dr. M.V.K. Murthy and Sri M.V.J.K. Kumar, filed Writ Petition No. 29913 of 2023 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati against the State of Andhra Pradesh (Irrigation and Command Area Development Department), the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Nandyal-II Circle, the Executive Engineer, DRD, KC Canal Division, Nandyal, and the Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, challenging an assessment order dated 21.01.2021 passed under Section 73 of the SGST Act, 2017 (Ref No. AAO No. ZH3701210D47908), demanding GST, interest and penalty on works contracts. The petitioner alleged the order was unsigned and improperly served. The order recorded that the petitioner had received Rs.2,09,44,477/- for works executed between April 2018 and March 2019 but filed GSTR-3B returns showing "nil" outward taxable turnover, which the Assessing Authority treated as suppression. The petitioner did not file a statutory appeal and approached the High Court directly, more than two years and ten months after the order, also relying on a pending representation dated 22.09.2023 regarding non-payment of GST by the awarding department under G.O.Ms. No. 58 dated 08.05.2018.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a writ petition challenging an assessment order under Section 73 of the SGST Act, filed nearly three years later without exhausting the statutory appellate remedy, is maintainable.
  2. Whether the petitioner's grievance regarding non-payment of GST by the government department awarding the works contract can invalidate the assessment order or restrain its implementation.
  3. Whether the Assessing Authority's factual finding of suppression of turnover can be reopened in writ jurisdiction.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner argued that the assessment order dated 21.01.2021 was unsigned and had not been validly served on him.
  • The petitioner contended that since the awarding government department (Executive Engineer, DRD, KC Canal Division) had not itself paid GST on the works contract despite G.O.Ms. No. 58 dated 08.05.2018, the impugned demand could not be enforced against him until his representation dated 22.09.2023 on this issue was decided.
  • The petitioner sought a direction restraining coercive action pending disposal of that representation, and requested that notice be issued as had reportedly been done in a similarly placed petition.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The respondents' position, reflected in the Court's findings, was that the assessment order had attained finality since it was never challenged in the statutory appeal available under the SGST Act, and that the writ petition itself was filed with an inordinate, unexplained delay of over two years and ten months.
  • It was pointed out that the plea regarding non-payment of GST by the awarding department had never been raised before the Assessing Authority at the show-cause stage, and that the order recorded a specific factual finding that the petitioner had suppressed turnover of Rs.2,09,44,477/- by filing "nil" returns.

Court Order/Findings

  • The Court held that the impugned assessment order, being appealable under the statute and never appealed, had attained finality, and that the writ petition - filed after more than two years and ten months without any explanation for the delay - could not be entertained.
  • The Court found that the ground now raised (non-payment of GST by the awarding department) had never been urged before the Assessing Officer at the reply stage and, being a disputed question of fact contrary to the Authority's recorded finding of suppression, could not be examined in writ jurisdiction.
  • The Court declined to direct the State respondents to pay the petitioner's dues under the pending representation, holding that this could not be a basis to interfere with or restrain implementation of the assessment order.
  • Operative direction: the writ petition was dismissed as without merit, with no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. The petitioner was left free to pursue whatever remedy might be available against the department for the alleged non-payment of GST on the works contract.

Important Clarification

  • An assessment order under Section 73 of the SGST Act that is not challenged in the available statutory appeal attains finality, and a writ petition filed years later without explaining the delay will ordinarily be dismissed on laches.
  • Grounds and factual pleas not raised before the Assessing Authority at the show-cause/reply stage cannot ordinarily be raised for the first time in writ proceedings, especially where they contradict a specific factual finding recorded in the order.
  • A contractor's separate grievance against the government department that awarded the works (for example, for not itself remitting GST as required by a government order) is a distinct cause of action and cannot be used to stall enforcement of an unrelated, final GST assessment order.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73, State/Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - determination of tax not paid/short paid for reasons other than fraud; the provision under which the assessment order was passed.
  • Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 265 and 300-A, Constitution of India - invoked by the petitioner to challenge the assessment as arbitrary and without authority of law.

Decision – In Favour of

Department - the writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, on the grounds of finality of the unappealed assessment order and unexplained delay in approaching the Court.

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: 29913 OF 2023
  • CNR: Not available on record
  • Coram: Hon'ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Hon'ble Sri Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu
  • Decision Date: 20.11.2023
  • Disposal Nature: Dismissed - order attained finality, no appeal filed, laches

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.