1 APHC010125932025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3525] WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 6296/2025 Between: M/s National Traders, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SYED KHADER MASTAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner was served by an assessment order, dated 10.10.2023 in Form GST DRC-07 for tax period 2021 to 2023, Form GST DRC-01 A dated 20.06.2023, for tax period 2021-2023, and Form GST DRC-01 dated 22.07.2023, for tax period 2021-2023, passed by the 3rd respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], this order has been challenged by the petitioner. 2 2. This assessment order, dated 10.10.2023 in Form GST DRC-07, for tax period 2021 to 2023, Form GST DRC-01 A dated 20.06.2023, for tax period 2021-2023, and Form GST DRC-01 dated 22.07.2023, for tax period 2021-2023, are challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said proceedings did not contain a DIN number. 3. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, submits that there is no DIN number on the impugned assessment order. 4. The question of the effect of non-inclusion of DIN number on proceedings, under the G.S.T. Act, came to be considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after noticing the provisions of the Act and the circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (herein referred to as “C.B.I.C.”), had held that an order, which does not contain a DIN number would be non-est and invalid. 5. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa 2, on the basis of the circular, dated 23.12.2019, bearing No.128/47/2019-GST, issued by the C.B.I.C., had held that non-mention of a DIN number would mitigate against the validity of such proceedings. Another Division Bench of 1 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC) 2 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.) 3 this Court in the case of Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam3, had also held that non-mention of a DIN number would require the order to be set aside. 6. In view of the aforesaid judgments and the circular issued by the C.B.I.C., the non-mention of a DIN number in the order, which was uploaded in the portal, requires the impugned order to be set aside. 7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned proceedings, dated 10.10.2023 in Form GST DRC-07, for tax period 2021 to 2023, Form GST DRC-01 A dated 20.06.2023, for tax period 2021-2023, and Form GST DRC-01 dated 22.07.2023, for tax period 2021- 2023, issued by the 3rd respondent, with liberty to the 3rd respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving notice and by assigning a DIN number to the said order. The period from the date of the impugned assessment orders, till the date of receipt of this Order shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO,J _______________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO,J RJS 3 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.) 4 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO & HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 6296 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Dt: 19.03.2025 RJS