1 HCJ & RRR,J W.P.No.5361/2025 APHC010100662025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3446] THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 5361/2025 Between: M/s.sri Shivashakti (sss) Constructions, ...PETITIONER AND The Additional Commissioner Of State Tax and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned G.P. for Commercial Tax, appearing for respondents. 2. The 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Kurnool, had passed an order of assessment, dated 08.11.2022, for the tax period April 2019 to March 2021, in the case of the petitioner. 2 HCJ & RRR,J W.P.No.5361/2025 Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent, which came to be dismissed on 22.01.2025. 3. The petitioner has assailed both the original order of assessment, dated 08.11.2022, as well as the order of appeal, dated 22.01.2025, before this Court, on various grounds, including the contention that both the respondents had passed the assessment order and the appeal order respectively, without considering the objections and the grounds of appeal raised by the petitioner. The petitioner also contended that the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, dated 08.11.2022, were not signed by the 2nd respondent. Apart from this, the impugned order, dated 08.11.2022, of the 2nd respondent, was preceded by show cause notices, dated 18.07.2022 and 24.08.2022, without containing a DIN number and consequently, the assessment order itself is nonest. 4. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, fairly concedes that there was no DIN number on the show cause notices, which preceded the order of assessment and that the order of assessment had not been signed by the 2nd respondent. However, the learned Government pleader would contend that, on merits, the petitioner has no case and the irregularities of non-mentioning of DIN number in the show cause notices and the absence of signature of the 3 HCJ & RRR,J W.P.No.5361/2025 2nd respondent in the impugned assessment order, can be regularized by considering the merits of the case. 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 referred to as “C.B.I.C.”), had held that an order, which does not contain a DIN number would be nonest and 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. Apart from this, a 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 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 HCJ & RRR,J W.P.No.5361/2025 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. 8. In view of the fact that the show cause notices and the assessment order, did not contain DIN numbers, the said show cause notices have to be set aside and consequently, the assessment proceedings would also stand set aside. Further, lack of signature on the impugned assessment order would render the assessment order nonest. Though, an appeal has already been filed and decided, the same would not regularize a nonest order. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of setting aside the order of appeal dated 22.01.2025 and the order of assessment dated 08.11.2022, and the matter is remanded back to the 2nd respondent for conducting fresh assessment, after giving notice and by assigning a DIN number in the said order that would be passed. The period from the date of the impugned assessment orders, till the date of receipt of this order shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J JS. 5 HCJ & RRR,J W.P.No.5361/2025 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO W.P.No.5361 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao) 6th March, 2025 JS