Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/s Madeena Steels, a proprietary concern situated in the APIIC Industrial Estate, Chittoor, was subjected to successive assessments and inspections by the GST authorities. Assessment orders were passed for the periods 01.07.2017 to 31.01.2022 (on 29.11.2022) and February 2022 to August 2022 (on 20.02.2023). Subsequently, a notice was issued by the third respondent for inspection under Section 67 of the AP GST Act, 2017 for the tax period September 2022 to January 2023, calling for records. The petitioner's grievance was that for each successive assessment period, a different officer had been authorised by the fourth respondent (Joint Commissioner) to conduct inspections, requiring the petitioner to repeatedly produce the same records and bank statements before different officers, causing hardship and disruption to its business.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether it is illegal or arbitrary for the tax department to authorise different officers for inspections relating to different assessment periods of the same taxpayer.
  2. Whether such practice amounts to harassment warranting judicial intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner contended that appointing different authorised officers for each assessment period, requiring repeated production of the same records, amounted to illegal, arbitrary and highhanded conduct without authority of law, violating principles of natural justice.
  • It was submitted that a single comprehensive notice from one authorised officer would allow the petitioner to produce all records at once and avoid repeated compliance burdens.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Government Pleader for Commercial Tax argued that appointing different authorised officers is the prerogative of the Joint Commissioner based on exigencies, workload, and administrative convenience, and the petitioner has no right to dictate this internal allocation.
  • It was pointed out that the assessment for the earlier period (2017 to August 2022) was already complete, and the fresh inspection notice pertained only to a distinct, later period (September 2022 to January 2023), so no genuine hardship arose.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court held that appointing different assessment/inspecting officers, having regard to workload and administrative exigencies, is squarely within the prerogative of the Joint Commissioner, and no statutory violation was shown that would warrant interference.
  • The Court found force in the Revenue's submission and declined to issue any mandamus directing appointment of a single officer.
  • However, taking note of the petitioner's practical difficulties, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation to the Joint Commissioner, who was directed to consider it and take necessary steps.
  • The writ petition was closed without costs, on these terms.

Important Clarification

Courts will not interfere with the internal administrative allocation of officers for inspection or assessment under Section 67 of the GST Act merely because different officers are assigned to different tax periods, so long as no specific statutory violation is demonstrated. A taxpayer facing genuine repeated-compliance hardship from multiple officers handling different periods must first raise the grievance administratively with the department rather than seeking a writ.

Sections Involved

  • Section 67, AP GST Act, 2017 — empowers proper officers to conduct inspection, search and seizure where there is reason to believe that a taxable person has suppressed transactions or evaded tax.
  • Article 226, Constitution of India — the writ jurisdiction invoked, which the Court declined to exercise to control internal administrative staffing decisions absent a statutory breach.

Decision – In Favour of

The decision is substantially in favour of the Department, as the challenge to the appointment of multiple inspecting officers was rejected; the petitioner was, however, given liberty to represent its difficulties administratively.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
Case No.: Writ Petition No.11185 of 2023
Coram: Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao and Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao
Date of Order: 03.05.2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

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.