APHC010284912025 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: 14368/2025 Between: 1. M V V SATYANARAYANA, (A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM) REPRESENTED BY SHRI.MANDAVILLI BHIMA SHANKER, PARTNER NANDYAL, 25/114, SANJEEVA NAGAR NANDYAL, KURNOOL, ANDHRA PRADESH-518501 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY (COMMERCIAL TAXES) 4TH BLOCK, GROUND FLOOR, A.P SECRETARIAT OFFICE, AMARAVATHI ROAD, VELAGAPUDI, ANDHRA PRADESH -522503 2. THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST, NANDYAL-LL CIRCLE, MSR COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, NANDYAL, ANDHRA PRADESH-518501 ...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 a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned ORDER No.ZD370324024006U in .2024 issued by Respondent No.2 and, ORDER form GST DRC-07 dated 26.03 aside the said impugned GST DRC-07 dated 26.03.2024 issued setandto quash 2 RRR,J & JS,J W.P.No.14368 of 2025 NO.ZD370324024006U in FORM by Respondent No.2 under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Goods (APGST Act, 2017) and Central Goods andand Services Tax Act, 2017 Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act, 2017) as illegal, arbitrary, violative of of the APGST/CGST Act, Services principles of natural justice, and provisions 2017 with consequential relief and to 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 stay all further proceedings, including penalty and recovery proceedings consequent to impugned ORDER No.ZD370324024006U in FORM GST DRC-07 dated 26.03.2024 passed by the 2nd Respondent and pass s IA NO: 2 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 dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the impugned ORDER No.ZD370324024006U in FORM GST DRC-07 dated 26.03.2024 issued by Respondent No.2 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CHIRANJEEVI TALASILA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. CHIRANJEEVI TALASILA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 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, dated 26.03.2024, passed by the 2nd respondent, under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”]. This assessment order of the 2nd respondent has been challenged by the petitioner in this Writ Petition. 3 RRR,J & JS,J W.P.No.14368 of 2025 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. 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 1 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC) 2 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.) 4 RRR,J & JS,J W.P.No.14368 of 2025 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, 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, dated 26.03.2024, issued by the 2nd respondent, with a liberty to the 2nd 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 3 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.) 5 RRR,J & JS,J W.P.No.14368 of 2025 89 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION No:14368 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 02.07.2025 KPV