APHC010338202025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 16931/2025 Between: 1. AVANI TECH SOULUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, PANTALOONS BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, MVRS, VINAYAGAR, TRADE CENTRE, VIP ROAD, SIRIPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH- 530003, REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, MR. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY EMANI ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CENTRAL TAX, CENTRAL TAX), VISAKHAPATNAM NORTH COST DIVISION. 2. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX GST APPEALS, O/O THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX AND CUSTOMS (APPEALS), D.NO.3-30-15, RING ROAD, GUNTUR- 522006, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 4. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI - 100 001. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction declaring (i) the action of the 1st Respondent in passing the Rejection of refund Order, dated 29.03.2023, which is passed even before the date of personal hearing on 31.03.2023 provided in the show cause notice dated 17.03.2023 and without waiting the time of fifteen days granted for filing of reply which expires on 01.04.2023 and the show cause notice and Order passed is without DIN, as illegal, bias, frivolous, and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India (II) the action of the 2nd Respondent in rejecting the appeal on limitation point, after numbering the appeal and kept one year for adjudication of the appeal hearing and without issuing any notice for admission and even during the personal hearing of the appeal on merits also not questing the limitation period, but only while passing the order the 2nd Respondent concluded on limitation issue even without referring to the Notification No.53/2023-Central tax dated 02.11.2023 issued by the 4th Respondent duly extending the statutory limitation period for filing of an appeal against the orders passed by the officer on or before 31.03.2023, and consequently set-aside the appeal order dated 31.01.2025 as null and void, 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 suspend the impugned proceedings videDO.No.716/2025, C.No.829/A1/2025, Dated.03.07.2025pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SANTHI CHANDRA 2. Y N VIVEKANANDA 3 The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner was served with the show-cause notice, dated 17.03.2023, passed by the 1st resspondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”]. This show-cause notice of the 1st respondent has been challenged by the petitioner in this Writ Petition. 2. The show-cause notice, dated 17.03.2023, is challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said proceeding did not contain a DIN number. 3. Smt. Santhi Chandra, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents, on instructions, submits that there is no DIN number on the impugned show-cause notice. 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 Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam3, had also held that non-mention of a DIN number would require the 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.) 4 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 this show-cause notice, which was uploaded in the portal, requires this show-cause notice to be set aside. 7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the show-cause notice, dated 17.03.2023, passed 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 show-cause notice. The period from the date of this show-cause notice, 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. _________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J. Dated: 06.08.2025 BSM 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR W.P.No.16931/2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Date: 06.08.2025 BSM