2025(05)LCX0564

Andhra Pradesh High Court

Srinivas Traders

Versus

The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax

WRIT PETITION NO: 10881/2025 decided on 07-05-2025

APHC010217092025

APHC010217092025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

WRIT PETITION NO: 10881/2025

Between:

M/s Srinivas Traders                                                     ...PETITIONER

AND

The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax and Others     ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.V SIDDHARTH REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

WRIT PETITION NO: 10883/2025

Between:

M/s Srinivas Traders                                                 ...PETITIONER

AND

The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax Circle and    ...RESPONDENT(S)
Others

Counsel for the Petitioner:

    1.V SIDDHARTH REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.

WRIT PETITION NO: 10885/2025

Between:

Srinivas Traders                                                                 ...PETITIONER

AND

The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax and Others     ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.V SIDDHARTH REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

WRIT PETITION NO: 10961/2025

Between:

M/s Srinivas Tradres                                             ...PETITIONER

AND

The Dy Assistance Commissioner and Others         ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.V SIDDHARTH REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

2.

WRIT PETITION NO: 10964/2025

Between:

M/s Srinivas Traders,                                                 ...PETITIONER

AND

The Dy Assistant Commissioner St Ii and Others     ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.V SIDDHARTH REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

The Court made the following common order:
{per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

In all these cases, the goods of the petitioner had been seized, while they were in transit. The petitioner assails these seizures on the ground that no reasons have been given for such seizure. The petitioner contends that the authorities, who had conducted seizures, had given a printed proforma and ticked one of the printed reasons, set out therein, given was without giving any further details. It is contended that in the absence of such details, there is no possibility for the petitioner to give his explanation.

2. Apart from this, the petitioner also contends that the authorities were required to issue a notice, under Section 129(3) of G.S.T Act, within seven days of seizure for calling upon the owner of the goods to participate in an enquiry to ascertain the tax payable on such goods. Thereafter, the authority is required, within seven days of issuance of notice, to complete a process for valuation and determination of tax. In the present case, the goods were seized on 17.04.2025 whereas no notice has been issued till date. The petitioner contends that the authority, instead of completing the process under Section 129 had moved on to take up the process under Section 130 and the same is also impermissible.

3. The documents produced, by the learned Government Pleader do not show any notice being issued under Section 129 of G.S.T Act, notices produced by the learned Government Pleader are notices that are to be issued under Section 130 of G.S.T.Act.

4. A perusal of the seizure memo would also show that no legible reasons for seizure have been set out in the said notices.

5. This Court is not willing to look into the instructions produced by the learned Government Pleader, given by the authorities, to justify such seizure. The law in this regard is well settled by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, that additional reasons cannot be supplemented after the impugned order had been passed.

6. In the circumstances, these Writ Petitions are disposed of with the following directions:

i) The concerned authorities, who had seized the goods of the petitioner, shall issue a notice under Section 129(3) of G.S.T Act within two days from today;

ii) The order ascertaining the documents of the goods and consequent tax, if any, payable on such goods shall be fixed within three days thereafter;

iii) This shall be done after notice and opportunity is being given to the petitioner;

iv) The goods of the petitioner would then be released in terms of Section 129(1) of the G.S.T Act;

v) The proceedings under Section 130 of G.S.T Act shall be initiated only after this process has been completed.

7. This is yet another case which requires the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to sensitize his officers about the manner in which such confiscations are to be carried out. There is every need for the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, to conduct coaching classes, if necessary, to train his officers to follow the law and the procedural safeguards set out in the law.

8. A copy of this judgment shall be placed before the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes for his action.

9. The gist of the order shall be informed to the concerned officers by the learned Government Pleader.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_______________________
R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO,J
_______________________
DR.K. MANMADHA RAO,J

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

HON’BLE DR JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

WRIT PETITION Nos.10881, 10883, 10885, 10961 & 10964 of 2025

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

Dt: 07.05.2025