APHC010301402025 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: 15276/2025 Between: 1. M/S. V. SREEDHAR REDDY,, FLAT NO. 1/91, LADDIGAM VILLAGE, CHADALLA PUNGANUR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517257, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR. V. SREEDHAR REDDY. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR5, A.P. STATE DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, D. NO. 10-56, 5TH FLOOR, ABOVE SYNDICATE BANK, NEAR TIME HOSPITAL, BUNDAR ROAD, ASHOK NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH - 520007. 2. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER ST, TIRUPATI, FLAT NO. 101, THUNGA RESIDENCY, RANIPARANTHAKA DEVI MARG, KORAMEENUGUNTA, RENIGUNTA ROAD, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517501. 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (CT) DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. 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 2 RRR,J & JS,J W.P.No.15276 of 2025 pleased topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly in the nature of MANDAMUS holding that the impugned interest and Penalty Order in Form GST DRC-07, passed by the First Respondent, vide Reference No. ZD3706240344611, dated 25- 06-2024, passed by the First Respondent, for the F.Y.s 2017-18 (from July, 2017), 2018-19 and 2019- 20 under the COST and SGST Acts, 2017, which does not contain DIN, which does not contain Signature/Digital Signature, which was passed pursuant to Show Cause Notice which does not contain DIN or Signature/Digital Signature, and which was passed for three Assessment Years, and which was passed by invoking S. 74 even though the ingredients for invoking the same are not available, and which was passed on the basis of single authorization for making inspection without any post inspection authorization for making Assessment, as without jurisdiction, non-est, invalid, contrary to law and illegal and even on merits not sustainable, and consequently set aside the same, or in the alternative set aside the impugned 'Endorsement', dated 03- 04-2025, vide A.O. No. DIN3703042580097, dated 03-04-2025, issued by the Second Respondent rejecting the Spl. Appeal No. 206/2024-25/CTR, filed by the Petitioner against the impugned Order of the First Respondent, on the ground of limitation, and direct him to entertain the said appeal and dispose of the same on merits 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 interest and penalty, pursuant to the impugned Interest and Penalty Order in Form GST DRC-07, passed by the First Respondent, vide Reference No. ZD3706240344611, dated 25-06-2024, passed by the First Respondent, for the F.Y.s 2017-18 (from July, 2017), 2018-19 and 2019-20 under the COST & SGST Acts, 2017, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 2. 3 RRR,J & JS,J W.P.No.15276 of 2025 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 25.06.2024, vide Reference No.ZD3706240344611, passed by the 1st respondent, under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for the tax period July, 2017 – March, 2020. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present 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 proceeding does not contain the signature of the assessing officer and also DIN number, on the impugned assessment order. 3. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, submits that there is no signature of the assessing officer and does not contain DIN number, on the impugned assessment order. 4. The effect of the absence of the signature, on an assessment order was earlier considered by this Court, in the case of A.V. Bhanoji Row Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), in W.P.No.2830 of 2023, decided on 14.02.2023. A Division Bench of this Court, had held that the signature, on the assessment order, cannot be dispensed with and that the provisions of Sections-160 & 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, would not rectify such a defect. Following this Judgment, another Division Bench of this Court, in the case of M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant 4 RRR,J & JS,J W.P.No.15276 of 2025 Commissioner, in W.P.No.29397 of 2023, decided on 10.11.2023, had set aside the impugned assessment order. 5. Another Division Bench of this Court by its Judgment, dated 19.03.2024, in the case of M/s. SRS Traders Vs The. Assistant Commissioner ST & ors, in W.P.No.5238 of 2024, following the aforesaid two Judgments, had held that the absence of the signature of the assessing officer, on the assessment order, would render the assessment order invalid and set aside the said order. 6. 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. 7. 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 1 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC) 2 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.) 5 RRR,J & JS,J W.P.No.15276 of 2025 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. 8. In view of the aforesaid judgments and the circular issued by the C.B.I.C., the non-mention of a DIN number and absence of the signature of the assessing officer, in the impugned assessment order would have to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned assessment order in FORM GST DRC-07, dated 25.06.2024, vide Reference No.ZD3706240344611, issued by the 1st respondent, with liberty to the 1st respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving a notice and by assigning a DIN number & signature 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.) 6 RRR,J & JS,J W.P.No.15276 of 2025 170 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION No:15276 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 02.07.2025 KPV