Satyanarayana Medical Distributors Vs Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax Intelligence and Others (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
The Andhra Pradesh High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Satyanarayana Medical Distributors, challenging a common assessment order under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the assessment order violated principles of natural justice. The show-cause notice covered the period from July 2017 to March 2018, but the assessment order spanned from July 2017 to February 2021. The petitioner contended that they did not have the opportunity to file objections for the extended period.
The petitioner also argued that the mandatory notice under Rule 142(1)A was not issued before the assessment. The respondents argued that Rule 142(1)A was amended in October 2020, changing the word “shall” to “may,” making the rule directory rather than mandatory. They claimed that the non-issuance of the Tax Intimation Notice under Rule 142(1)A would not affect the assessment period after October 2020.
The High Court referred to its previous judgment in W.P. No. 12850 of 2022, which dealt with the necessity of a Tax Intimation Notice under Rule 142(1)A. In that case, the court held that issuing the notice was mandatory before the October 2020 amendment, and its non-issuance would invalidate the assessment order. For the post-amendment period, the court found that even though the rule became directory, it was appropriate to issue the notice, especially when the assessment order covered both pre- and post-amendment periods. Given the factual similarity, the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and allowed the Assessing Authority to take appropriate steps in line with the court’s earlier order.
