1 RRR, J & JS, J W.P.No.16364 of 2025 APHC010320572025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3541] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION No:16364 of 2025 Between: Y Chandra Sekhar Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The Assistant Commissioner ST FAC and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVASA RAO KUDUPUDI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 2. The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner was served with an assessment order, dated 14.12.2021 passed by the 1st respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 for short ‘the GST Act’ for the period April 2018 to December 2020. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 2 RRR, J & JS, J W.P.No.16364 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 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.) 3 RRR, J & JS, J W.P.No.16364 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 14.12.2021, issued by the 1st respondent, with liberty to the 1st respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving notice and by assigning a DIN number to the said order. The period from the date of the impugned assessment orders, till the date of receipt of this Order shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ____________________ SUMATHI JAGADAM, J Js. 3 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.) 4 RRR, J & JS, J W.P.No.16364 of 2025 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION No.16364 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) 22nd August, 2025 Js.