Andhra Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Unsigned GST Assessment Order. In a significant ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court sets aside an unsigned GST assessment order, citing procedural lapses under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 

The Counsel for the Petitioner S.R.A Rozedar, challenged the assessment order issued in Form GST DRC-07 on December 18, 2023, for the financial year 2017-18. The primary argument was that the order lacked the signature of the assessing officer, a fundamental requirement under the GST Act. The petitioner argued that this omission rendered the order invalid. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, representing the respondents, admitted that the assessment order indeed did not contain the signature of the assessing officer. This admission brought the case under the purview of earlier judgments by the same court. The court referred to previous rulings, including A.V. Bhanoji Row vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), where it was held that the absence of the assessing officer’s signature could not be rectified under Sections 160 and 169 of the GST Act. The division bench also cited subsequent cases such as M/s SRK Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner and M/s SRS Traders vs. The Assistant Commissioner ST and Others, which reiterated the importance of the signature as a mandatory requirement for the validity of an assessment order. In light of these precedents, the court held that the unsigned assessment order in the present case was invalid. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order but granted liberty to the respondents to conduct a fresh assessment after issuing proper notice and ensuring compliance with procedural requirements. 

The judgment emphasizes the importance of procedural compliance in GST-related matters and reinforces the principle that adherence to statutory requirements cannot be dispensed with. This ruling serves as a crucial reminder for assessing authorities to ensure the validity of their orders to avoid similar challenges in the future.

In a significant legal development, the High Court has granted an interim stay on all further proceedings in FIR Proceedings pertaining to a case involving accusations under Sections 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, revolves around a dispute between the Petitioner and the de facto complainant. 

Advocate S.R.A Rozedar appearing for the petitioner argued that the complaints lack specific incidents or evidence, constituting clear illegality and an abuse of the legal process. They highlight that the allegations in the First Information Report (FIR) do not prima facie constitute any offense against them. They also point out that multiple complaints were filed by the de facto complainant for the same cause of action, which is impermissible according to the Apex Court’s rulings. 

The de facto complainant, who is the former wife of the petitioner, has filed a cheating case several years after their divorce. In 2012, the de facto complainant filed several complaints, including which are still pending in various courts. Despite a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed in 2015 to settle all disputes, the de facto complainant allegedly failed to withdraw the cases or reconcile with the Petitioner. In 2021, the Petitioner pronounced Talaq-E-Hasan, officially divorcing his wife in accordance with Muslim traditions. 

In response to the latest complaint, the petitioners sought the High Court’s intervention under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) to quash the FIR. They argued that the subsequent complaint is based on the same allegations and incidents as the previous ones, making it impermissible and an abuse of statutory power. 

In its interim order, the High Court stated, “Apparently on the face of it, the present complaint amounts to the second complaint on the very same set of facts. The matter requires examination. In view of the said reasons, there shall be an interim stay of all further proceedings for a period of twelve (12) weeks.” 

This case highlights the complexities and challenges in legal disputes involving familial and marital conflicts. The interim stay granted by the High Court provides temporary relief to the petitioners, pending a detailed examination of the merits of their case.

A student from Kadapa District of Andhra Pradesh has filed a Writ Petition against Mohan Babu University, Tirupati, for allegedly withholding his original academic certificates, thereby preventing him from seeking employment opportunities. Advocate S.R.A. Rozedar, appearing for the student, argued the case, emphasizing the illegality of the university’s actions under the relevant educational regulations. 

The petitioner completed his SSC in 2021 and Intermediate Education in the year 2023. He secured a seat in aforesaid University for Civil Engineering Program. Due to sudden financial difficulties, the petitioner struggled to continue his education. Despite paying initial fees, his family could not afford further expenses, leading him to seek discontinuation of his studies and return of his original certificates. 

The petitioner and his father visited the university to submit a discontinuation form and retrieve his certificates but were told they needed to pay Rs. 3,50,000 for the remaining semesters. The university staff refused to provide the discontinuation form without payment. The petitioner issued a legal notice in March 2024, requesting the return of his certificates. The petitioner has approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, citing violations of the Andhra Pradesh Private Universities Act 2016 and UGC guidelines, which mandate the return of original certificates after verification. 

Filing under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus to compel the university to release his certificates, claiming the demand for fees is unconstitutional and arbitrary. The petitioner highlights the urgent need for his certificates to apply for government exams scheduled. This case highlights the issue of educational institutions’ compliance with regulatory guidelines and the rights of students facing financial hardships. 

Finally, upon the orders of the High Court, the university has considered the representation of the student and returned the original certificates without requiring payment for the remaining semesters. This case underscores the importance of regulatory compliance by educational institutions and the protection of students’ rights in financial hardship situations.

In a recent ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court overturned the suspension of a Panchayat Secretary who was placed under suspension through proceedings dated April 10, 2024. The Court found the suspension to be arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. 

The Petitioner who has been serving as Panchayat Secretary since June 2020, was suspended following allegations that he failed to comply with the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) during the 2024 General Elections. The allegations were based on a show cause notice issued on March 24, 2024, by the Returning Officer, stating that campaign materials were still visible in certain villages under the petitioner’s jurisdiction. The Learned Counsel Advocate S.R.A Rozedar appearing for the petitioner highlighted various photographs and communication records that demonstrated his compliance with the MCC.

In his defense, the petitioner claimed he had promptly removed all campaign materials with the help of Panchayat workers. He provided photographic evidence and stated that any remaining materials were due to actions by children and unknown individuals after his team had already cleared the sites. The Court noted that the petitioner had submitted a detailed explanation on March 26, 2024, and provided evidence through WhatsApp to the relevant authorities. Despite this, the authorities proceeded with the suspension without considering his explanation. 

During the hearing, the Court found that the suspension order did not take into account the evidence provided by the petitioner. The High Court concluded that the suspension was issued without due consideration of the petitioner’s explanation and evidence. The Court set aside the suspension order and directed that the petitioner be reinstated with immediate effect, with all previous terms and conditions, including payment of his salary. The Court also instructed the authorities to provide the petitioner an opportunity to present his explanation again and ensure any future decisions follow the principles of natural justice. This ruling underscores the importance of fair administrative processes and adherence to natural justice principles in disciplinary actions within public services.