APHC010484392025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 24895/2025 Between: 1. M/S. SRI RAMA KRISHNA ENGINEERING WORKS,, HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT D. NO. 639/3A, BYPASS ROAD, MANDAPETA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. K. RAMA KRISHNA ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST, REGIONAL GST AUDIT AND ENFORCEMENT, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530001 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST, MANDAPETA CIRCLE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM DIVISION 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE (CT) DEPT., VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI ...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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the impugned Assessment Order vide FORM GST DRC - 07 Dt. 21.05.2025 passed by the 2nd Respondent for the tax periods June 2022 to October 2024 which does not bear any DIN or Signature as illegal, arbitrary, violative 2 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.24895 of 2025 of the provisions of the GST Act, without jurisdiction and set aside the same, or to 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 the impugned Assessment Order vide FORM GST DRC - 07 Dt. 21.05.2025 passed by the 2nd Respondent for the tax periods June 2022 to October 2024pending disposal of the present Writ Petition or to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PEDDIBHOTLA VENKATA SAI RAJESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 3 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.24895 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 21.05.2025, passed by the 2nd respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for the tax period July 2022 to October 2024. 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 & TCDS, J W.P.No.24895 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 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 & TCDS, J W.P.No.24895 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. This Court is also cognizant of the fact that the impugned order has been passed some time back and the present Writ Petition has been filed with delay. However, Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 stipulates that service of notice or orders, without signature, would not amount to service at all. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras, in T.V.L. Deepa Traders vs. The Deputy Commissioner (W.P.No.19277 of 2024, dated 13.08.2024) had held the same view. Consequently, there is no service of the impugned order even as of today, on account of the absence of signatue on the impugned proceeding. In those circumstances, the delay in approaching this Court would not be a relevant factor. 10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned assessment order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 21.05.2025, issued by the 2nd respondent, with liberty to the 2nd respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving notice and by assigning a signature to the said order. 3 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.) 6 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.24895 of 2025 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 ________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J Date: 17.09.2025 MJA 7 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.24895 of 2025 129 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 24895 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 17.09.2025 MJA