1 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.11519/2023 APHC010206632023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 11519/2023 Between: Lakshmi Sowjanya Enterprises ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri Narendra Chetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax. 2. The petitioner was served by an assessment order, dated 28.01.2023, passed by the 4th respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax 2 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.11519/2023 Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”] for the period 01.07.2017 to 15.02.2020 this order has been challenged by the petitioner. 3. This assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, is challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said proceedings did not contain a DIN number. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, submits that there is no DIN number on the impugned assessment order. 5. 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. 6. 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.) 3 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.11519/2023 Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam3, had also held that non-mention of a DIN number would require the order to be set aside. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned proceedings, dated 28.01.2023 issued by the 4th respondent, with liberty to the 4th 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, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J _____________________ T.C.D.SEKHAR, J Js. 3 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.) 4 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.11519/2023 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION No.11519 of 2023 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) 12th March, 2025 Js.