Heard Mr. P. Girish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Y. N. Vivekananda, learned Government Pleader, Commercial Tax, for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has moved the Court for setting aside the proceedings dated 29.07.2021, by which an order has been passed imposing tax under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IGST Act’) by the respondent no.1.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the manner in which the order has been passed is patently illegal and even the consideration is not in accordance with law and contrary to the factual aspects of the matter.

4. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the Court through various materials and documents on record but, since the same are with regard to pure factual aspects, in view of the order which the Court proposes to pass, it is not deemed necessary to advert to such submissions, moreso, for the reason that the Court may have to comment on such factual aspects which it does not propose to.

5. Similarly, various factual aspects brought to the notice of the Court by learned counsel for the respondents are also not being taken note of. However, it is recorded that learned counsel for the respondents has taken a preliminary objection that the matter can be taken in appeal before the appellate authority and further that the order impugned is well discussed both on facts as well as in law and based on materials which the petitioner has produced before the authority.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, in view of the issues being primarily based on factual aspects, which have to be verified from the records or upon which evidence has to be adduced, in the considered opinion of the Court, under its prerogative writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the same may not be the proper forum for such adjudication. Moreover, as has rightly been submitted by learned counsel for the respondents, the order being appealable, the writ petition stands disposed of with observation that the petitioner may approach the Appellate Forum against the order impugned. Since the limitation for filing such appeal has expired, but in view of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court extending the limitation period in such matters, the period for filing the appeal still survives. No order as to costs.

7. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has filed an Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2021 for suspension of the impugned order dated 29.07.2021. It was further submitted that Interlocutory Application No.2 of 2021 has been filed for impleading the proposed respondents. Further, it was submitted that Interlocutory Application No.3 of 2021 has been filed to suspend the operation of the notice dated 10.12.2021 issued by the Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-II, Anantapuramu, during pendency of the writ petition and finally Interlocutory Application No.4 of 2021 for amending the prayer in the main writ petition by adding the following reliefs:

(a) to declare the action of the respondent no.1 in passing the proceedings dated 29.07.2021 under the IGST Act is without jurisdiction, authority of law and in violation of the principles of natural justice; and  

(b) to direct the Chief Commissioner (ST), Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada to take appropriate disciplinary action against one of the proposed respondents for fabricating the summons dated 07.11.2019 and pressing into service the FORM GST INS-01 issued in favour of some other officer.

8. Having considered the aforesaid submission, the Court does not find any occasion to allow these Interlocutory Applications as no purpose would be served since the Court is permitting the petitioner to move the appellate authority, before whom all issues can be agitated and, depending on what order is passed by the appellate authority, consequences shall follow. Accordingly, the Interlocutory Applications also stand disposed of.

9. It is observed that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be moving the appellate forum within three weeks from today. Having regard to the aforesaid, to avoid any confusion, if such an appeal is filed by the petitioner within three (3) weeks from today before the appellate authority, the same shall be considered and disposed of on merits, in accordance with law.