SWATHI ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTIONS v. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST, CIRCLE - 1, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT

MAITREYAPURAM APARTMENT, ONGOLE, PARTNER SRI S VENU GOPAL REDDY, S/O KOTI REDDY PRAKASAM DISTRICT. REP. BY RAMNAGAR 1ST ...PETITIONER AND

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST, CIRCLE - 1, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARY, COMMERCIAL SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, FINANCE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI.

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PIU (PR) DIVISION, ONGOLE

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PIU (PR) DIVISION, NELLORE

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWS AND S DIVISION, ONGOLE 2

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, R AND B DIVISION, KANIGIRI

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, R AND B DIVISION, ONGOLE

BRANCH MANAGER, AXIS BANK, KANDUKUR BRANCH, PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tobe pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly in the nature of MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in issuing the impugned notice to third person under section 79 of the COST Act/APGST Act, 2017 vide DIN 3715092575091 dated 15.09.2025 to the 9th Respondent Bank, wherein the Petitioner is having its Current Account No 914020006700438, for recovery of of a sum of Rs 1,59,21,312/- due as per the Assessment Order in Form DRC-07 dated 27.02.2025 by the 1st Respondent for the tax periods 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 under the CGST/APGST Act, 2017, as being contrary to and violative of the directions contained in the Order of this Honble High Court dated 30.04.2025 in W.P. No. 11329 of 2025 directing that the differential tax of 6 percent are payable by the Respondents 4 to 8, amounts to contempt of court, unjustified and illegal and consequently set aside the impugned notice to third person u/s 79 and direct the 1st Respondent to recover the due amounts from the Respondents 4 to 8 and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased be pleased to grant stay of operation of the impugned notice to third person under section 79 vide DIN 3715092575091 dated 15.09.2025, issued by the 1st Respondent to the 9th Respondent Bank and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. L CHANDRA OBUL REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 3

1. GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS

2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

3. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

5. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING 4 The Court made the following order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner had executed certain infrastructure work in the year 2021-22 and 2022-23 for the State Government authorities and other authorities. The petitioner had been reimbursed payment of G.S.T, at 12% of the value of the work for the Government authorities for these contracts and the same had been remitted to the GST authorities. However, an order of assessment, dated 27.02.2025 was passed by the 1st respondent in which the 1st respondent claimed that the rate of tax payable by the petitioner was 18% on the ground that there was an amendment in the rate of tax with effect from

18.07.2022. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.11329 of 2025, which came to be disposed of on

13.04.2025 with a direction to the Panchayat Raj and Roads & Buildings authorities to pay the differential amount of tax to the petitioner to enable the petitioner to pass on the said tax to the GST Department.

2. The petitioner has again approached this Court with the contention that both the Panchayat Raj as well as the Roads & Buildings Department had not cleared the differential rate of 6%, on account of which, the 1st respondent had initiated recovery proceedings by attaching the bank account of the petitioner, available with the 9th respondent. 5

3. The respondents 4 to 6 Executive Engineers, of the Panchayat Raj Department, have filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of the 4th respondent. It is contended that various bills of the petitioner, relating to the contracts executed by the petitioner, though cleared after 18.02.2022 had in fact been measured and work has been treated as completed, in relation to such bills, before

18.07.2022 itself. It is contended that the payments, though, made after

18.07.2022 cannot be treated as transaction which occurred after 18.02.2022.

4. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the Commercial Tax Department as well as the Panchayat Raj and Roads & Buildings Departments to resolve these inter se disputes between themselves as to whether the amendment, dated 18.07.2022 would be applicable and if so, to which contracts would such amendment be applicable. It is only after the issue is resolved, any demand can be made against the petitioner. Needless to say, any amounts due, after such ascertainment, shall be remitted by the Roads & Buildings and Panchayat Raj Departments to the petitioner for onward payment to the Commercial Tax Department. 6