The main legal point established in the judgment is the violation of the principles of natural justice due to the show cause notice being served after the expiry of the time granted for submitting the reply.

ORDER :

1. Petitioner prays for writ of mandamus declaring the show cause notice dated 06.07.2022 in Form GST DRC-01-A issued under Section 74(1) r/w Rule 142(1)(a) of A.P. Goods and Services Act, 2017 (for short “APGST Act) by the 3rd respondent and consequent attaching of bank account of the petitioner maintained with 4th respondent bank without at first issuing notice under section 61 of APGST Act calling for explanation of the petitioner and even without passing final assessment order U/s 74 of APGST Act is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of APGST Act and consequently to set aside the show cause notice dated 06.07.2022 and direct the respondents to release the petitioner’s bank account.

2. Petitioner’s case succinctly is thus:

(a) Petitioner was trading in groundnut and registered under the rolls of 3rd respondent having GST identification No. 37DPKPB1913PIZM. The petitioner was regularly filing return till August, 2019 and thereafter he suffered huge loss and wound up his business in August, 2019 and consequently his GST registration was cancelled w.e.f. August, 2019.

(b) while so, a show cause notice dated 06.07.2022 in Form GST DRC-01-A under Section 74(1) r/w Rule 142(1)(a) of APGST Act was issued to him by the 3rd respondent alleging that as per the information provided by the Additional Director, DGGI, Visakhapatnam the petitioner has fraudulently claimed Input Tax Credit of Rs.11,84,600 (IGST) for Financial Year 2018-19 which was adjusted in the TRP towards GSTR3B return liability of sum of Rs.10,45,400/- for the period August, 2018 to August, 2019, however it came to light that the petitioner passed the fraudulent ITC invoices to the purchasers. Thus the petitioner was called for either to submit explanation by 13.07.2022 or to pay tax Rs.11,84,600/- along with interest and penalty equivalent to tax amount U/s 74(1) and 172 of IGST Act, 2017.

(c) The petitioner’s case is that he received above show cause notice on 16.07.2022 i.e., after the expiry of time granted for submitting explanation. Therefore, the petitioner personally approached respondent No. 3 and submitted that all the business transactions of the petitioner firm were genuinely covered by e-way bills generated for each supply with the vehicle numbers and concerned locations and the purchasers were genuine traders situated in the State of Telangana and supplies were made to them during the course of inter-state supply and that he has not committed any fault. However, the 3rd respondent refused to accept the objections raised by the petitioner on the ground that the time stipulated in the show cause notice for filing objections was over. He did not consider the submission of the petitioner that he received notice only on 16.07.2022 and informed to the petitioner that final assessment order would be issued in due course.

(d) Petitioner’s grievance is that though final assessment order was not yet passed, in the meanwhile, the salary account of the petitioner was attached and from out of the salary credited to the said account, amounts are being deducted towards recovery of the tax amount. Such recovery shall not arise till passing of the final assessment orders but the attachment was made prior to the final assessment order which is a provisional attachment. A provisional attachment can be made U/s 83 of APGST Act by the Commissioner of Taxes only. Such a provisional attachment order was also not passed and communicated to the petitioner. It is not known whether any final assessment order has been passed by the 3rd respondent.

(e) Further case of the petitioner is that as per AP GST Act, GST is a self assessment regime whereunder, every taxable person has to submit his monthly/annual income in relevant forms, basing on which the extent of tax liability will be determined by the authorities. If the proper officer comes to opinion that return filed by the assessee was faulty or there was discrepancy or he claimed excessive