APHC010091522025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3525] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 4911/2025 Between: Maruti Ispat And Energy Private Limited ...PETITIONER AND The Additional Commissioner Of State Tax And Appellate Authority and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PASUPULETI VENKATA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 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 18.02.2022, passed by the 2nd respondent, under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”] and an Order-In-Appeal, in Form GST APL - 02, dated 07.10.2023, passed by the 1st respondent. These impugned orders have been challenged by the petitioner, in this Writ Petition. 2 RRR,J & Dr.KMR,J W.P.No.4911 of 2025 2. These impugned orders, are 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 orders. 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 non-est and 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 & Dr.KMR,J W.P.No.4911 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 orders, which was uploaded in the portal, requires the impugned orders to be set aside. 7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned proceedings, dated 18.02.2022 & 07.10.2023, issued by the respondents 2 & 1 respectively, with a liberty to the respondents to take up further proceedings, after giving a notice to the petitioner and assigning a DIN number to the said orders. 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 _______________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J Date:05.03.2025 KPV 3 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.) 4 RRR,J & Dr.KMR,J W.P.No.4911 of 2025 388 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION No:4911 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 05.03.2025 KPV