APHC010698272025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 36043/2025 Between: 1. VENKATA SAI STONE CRUSHER, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETRIX, M. MAHALAKSHMI, RS NO.329P 330P 33911P, BESIDE GNT ROAD, DUDDUKURU, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT -534313 ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, (ST), NIDADAVOLE CIRCLE, NIDADAVOLE, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, 3RD FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI-110 001. 3. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (CT-II) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI,GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS, GST POLICY WING, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER (GST). ...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 & TCDS,J W.P.No.36043 of 2025 pleased topleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction - (a) declaring that the assessment order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the 1st Respondent for the tax period 2021-22 under Section 73 of the GST Act is void and illegal for not containing any valid DIN and consequently, set- aside the same or (b) alternatively, direct that no enforcement or recovery of the amounts levied under the assessment order dated 03.02.2025 can be made and that the limitation to file statutory appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act does not commence until the order dated 03.02.2025 is communicated with a valid DIN in accordance with law 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 interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order dated 03.02.2025 for the tax period 2021-22 issued by the 1st Respondent, pending disposal of the Writ Petition as otherwise the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 2. 3 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.36043 of 2025 The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri P. Karthik Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner was served with an assessment order, dated 03.02.2025, passed by the 1st respondent, under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for the tax period 2021-2022. The assessment order of the 1st respondent, has been challenged by the petitioner, in this Writ Petition. 3. The said 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 Taxes appearing for the respondents, 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 & TCDS,J W.P.No.36043 of 2025 referred to as “C.B.I.C.”), had held that an order, which does not contain a DIN number would be 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 assessment order, dated 03.02.2025, issued by the 1st respondent, with a liberty to the 1st 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 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 & TCDS,J W.P.No.36043 of 2025 As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J _________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J Date:31.12.2025 KPV 6 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.36043 of 2025 193 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION No.36043 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 31.12.2025 KPV