1 RRR,J & Dr. KMR,J W.P.No.7169/2025 APHC010140612025 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: 7169/2025 Between: Yantra Epcom Solutions Pvt Ltd ...PETITIONER AND The Chief Commissioner Of State Taxes and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PEDDIBHOTLA VENKATA SAI RAJESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 2. The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri Peddibhotla Venkata Sai Rajesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner was served with an assessment order in A. O. ZH371120OD84298 dated 27.10.2020 for the assessment period September, 2 RRR,J & Dr. KMR,J W.P.No.7169/2025 2017 to June, 2018 and A.O.No. ZH370121OD41932 dated 31.12.2020 for the tax period September 2018 to February 2020 and consequential recovery proceedings in FORM GST DRC-13, dated 27.07.2021, passed by the 2nd respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”]. These orders have been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 3. This assessment order, in Form GST DRC-13, is challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said proceeding does not contain the signature of the assessing officer and also DIN number, on the impugned assessment order. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, submits that there is no signature of the assessing officer and does not contain DIN number, on the impugned assessment order. 5. The effect of the absence of the signature, on an assessment order was earlier considered by this Court, in the case of A.V. Bhanoji Row Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), in W.P.No.2830 of 2023, decided on 14.02.2023. A Division Bench of this Court, had held that the signature, on the assessment order, cannot be dispensed with and that the provisions of Sections-160 & 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, would not rectify such a defect. Following this Judgment, another Division Bench of this Court, in the case of M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant 3 RRR,J & Dr. KMR,J W.P.No.7169/2025 Commissioner, in W.P.No.29397 of 2023, decided on 10.11.2023, had set aside the impugned assessment order. 6. Another Division Bench of this Court by its Judgment, dated 19.03.2024, in the case of M/s. SRS Traders Vs The. Assistant Commissioner ST & ors, in W.P.No.5238 of 2024, following the aforesaid two Judgments, had held that the absence of the signature of the assessing officer, on the assessment order, would render the assessment order invalid and set aside the said order. 7. 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. 8. 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 this Court in the case of Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs. The 1 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC) 2 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.) 4 RRR,J & Dr. KMR,J W.P.No.7169/2025 Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam3, had also held that non-mention of a DIN number would require the order to be set aside. 9. In view of the aforesaid judgments and the circular issued by the C.B.I.C., the non-mention of a DIN number and absence of the signature of the assessing officer, in the impugned assessment order would have to be set aside. 10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned assessment orders in A. O. ZH371120OD84298 dated 27.10.2020 for the assessment period September, 2017 to June, 2018 and A.O.No. ZH370121OD41932 dated 31.12.2020 for the tax period September 2018 to February 2020 and consequential recovery proceedings in FORM GST DRC- 13, dated 27.07.2021, passed by the 2nd respondent, with liberty to the 2nd respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving notice and by assigning signature to the said order. The period from the date of the impugned assessment order, 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, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ______________________________ Dr. K MANMADHA RAO, J Js. 3 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.) 5 RRR,J & Dr. KMR,J W.P.No.7169/2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.7169 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) 19th March, 2025 Js.