APHC010296072025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3541] WEDNESDAY,THE NINTH 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: 16787/2025 Between: 1. VARNASOL CONSTRUCTIONS, D. NO.12/111/1, BEHIND OLD BUSSTAND KOTHAPETA DHONE, NANDYAL DISTRICT- 518222. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR. B. RAVI SHANKAR, S/O. B.SREENIVASULU AGED 46 YEARS, R/O. 7-9-3-8, NEHRU NAGAR, DHONE MANDALAM DHONE, KURNOOL ANDHRA PRADESH- 518222. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, NANDYAL-LL CIRCLE, D.NO.25/35A AND 25/3B, MSR COMPLEX NEAR RTC BUSSTAND, NANDYAL, ANDHRA PRADESH- 518501. 2. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, FLAT NOS. 101 AND 102, THUNGA RESIDENCY, 19TH WARD, POSTAL COLONY RESIDENTIAL AREA. RANI PARANTHAKA DEVI MARG, RENIGUNTA ROAD TIRUPATI, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517501 3. THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, KURNOOL-LLL CIRCLE, 1ST FLOOR, CT COMPLEX. NEAR INDUS SCHOOL, NH-7, GOOTY ROAD, KURNOOL, ANDHRA PRADESH- 518002. 2 RRR, J & JS, J W.P.No.16787 of 2025 4. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT (COMMERCIAL TAX) A P SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI - 522 503 ...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 Mandamus declaring that the impugned order is passed by Respondent No. 1 in order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 24.02.2025 Ref no. ZD3702250400660, ZD370225040007S under the provisions of CGST/APGST Act, 2017 as being void, arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, without authority of law apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India, and to consequently set aside the same and/or 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 operation of impugned order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 24.02.2025 Ref no. ZD3702250400660, ZD370225040007S issued by Respondent No. 1 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PASUPULETI VENKATA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 2. 3 RRR, J & JS, J W.P.No.16787 of 2025 The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri P. Venkata Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner was served with an assessment order, dated 24.02.2025, passed by the 1st respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for the period 2020-21. This assessment order of the 1st respondent has been challenged by the petitioner in this Writ Petition. 3. This assessment order 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 1 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC) 4 RRR, J & JS, J W.P.No.16787 of 2025 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 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 order, dated 24.02.2025, issued by the 1st respondent, with liberty to the 1st respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving 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. 2 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.) 3 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.) 5 RRR, J & JS, J W.P.No.16787 of 2025 As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ____________________ SUMATHI JAGADAM, J Date: 09.07.2025 MJA 6 RRR, J & JS, J W.P.No.16787 of 2025 307 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 16787 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 09.07.2025 MJA