APHC010245582025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3541] WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 12441/2025 Between: 1. M/S. HARISH TRADERS,, SY. NO. 651-86, BEHIND HONDA SHOW ROOM, DUVVUR, YSR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 516175, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETRIX, SMT. SARALA DEVI KRISHNASINGH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST, PRODDATUR-I CIRCLE, D.NO 24/586, RAMESWARAM ROAD, VASANTHAPETA, PRODDUTUR, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 516164. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (CT) DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY (FINANCE), MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110001. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of MANDAMUS holding that the impugned Ex-Parte, Best Judgment Assessment Order passed by the First Respondent under S. 62 of the AP SGST and COST Acts, 2017, for the Month of August, 2023, 2 RRR,J & JS,J W.P.No.12441 of 2025 vide Reference No. ZD371123000807P, dated 02-11-2023, which does not contain any electronically generated DIN, which does not contain any Signature/Digital Signature and is an unsigned order, without any reasons, without basis or material, without serving show cause notice and without affording opportunity of personal hearing is arbitrary, capricious, invalid, non- est, not an order in the eye of law, violative of the principles of natural justice, contrary to law and illegal, and consequently set aside the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant Stay of all further proceedings, including recovery of tax and interest, pursuant to the impugned Ex-Parte, Best Judgment Assessment Order passed by the First Respondent under S. 62 of the AP SGST and CGST Acts, 2017, for the Month of August, 2023, vide Reference No. ZD371123000807P, dated 02-11- 2023, and pass 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) The petitioner was served with an assessment order, in FORM GST DRC – 07, vide Reference No.ZD371123000807P, dated 02.11.2023, passed by the 1st respondent, under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”] for the tax period, August - 2023. This assessment order of the 1st respondent has been challenged by the petitioner in this 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 did not contain a DIN number. 3 RRR,J & JS,J W.P.No.12441 of 2025 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 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. 1 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC) 2 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.) 3 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.) 4 RRR,J & JS,J W.P.No.12441 of 2025 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, vide Reference No.ZD371123000807P, dated 02.11.2023, issued by the 1st respondent, with a liberty to the 1st respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving a notice to the petitioner and assigning 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. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J _____________________ SUMATHI JAGADAM, J Date:02.07.2025 KPV 5 RRR,J & JS,J W.P.No.12441 of 2025 166 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION No:12441 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 02.07.2025 KPV