sAPHC010253032025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3525] WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 12622/2025 Between: M/s. Swift Kart, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. JYOTHI RATNA ANUMOLU 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 order of attachment, dated 03.05.2025, passed by the 2nd respondent, under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for the tax period 2020-2021. This order of attachment has been challenged by the petitioner in this Writ Petition. 2. The said order, is challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said proceedings did not contain a DIN number. 2 RRR,J & Dr.KMR,J W.P.No.12622 of 2025 3. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, submits that there is no DIN number on the impugned 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. 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 of attachment, which was uploaded in the portal, requires the impugned 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.) 3 RRR,J & Dr.KMR,J W.P.No.12622 of 2025 7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned proceedings, dated 03.05.2025, leaving it open to the respondents to take up further proceedings, subject to law and after giving a notice to the petitioners and assigning a DIN number to the said order. 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 Date:07.05.2025 KPV 4 RRR,J & Dr.KMR,J W.P.No.12622 of 2025 169 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION No:12622 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 07.05.2025 KPV