APHC010171972025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3536] WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 9213/2025 Between: Murali Krishna Enterprises ...PETITIONER AND The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K ADI SIVA VARA PRASAD 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) The petitioner was served with the assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, dated 04.08.2023, passed by the 1st respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for the period April-2018 to March-2019. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition. 2. This assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, is challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said proceedings does not contain the signature of the assessing officer and also 2 DIN number, on the impugned order. The petitioner also stated that the account of the petitioner has been attached for recovery of amount. 3. 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. 4. 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 Commissioner, in W.P.No.29397 of 2023, decided on 10.11.2023, had set aside the impugned assessment order. 5. 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. 6. 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. 1 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC) 3 7. 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 Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam3, had also held that non-mention of a DIN number would require the order to be set aside. 8. 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. 9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, dated 04.08.2023, passed by the 1st respondent, with liberty to the 1st respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving notice and by assigning a signature and a DIN number 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. _______________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. _________________________________ DR. JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J. BSM 2 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.) 3 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.) 4 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.9213 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Date: 30.04.2025 BSM