APHC010004762026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 426/2026 Between: 1. GIRIJAN PRIMARY COOPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED,, REPRESENTED BY SHRI. PANGI KUMARASWAMY, MAIN ROAD, NEAR POLICE STATION, MUNCHINGPUT VILLAGE, MUNCHINGPUT MANDAL, ALLURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 531 040. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST, PADERU CIRCLE, VISAKHAPATNAM - II DIVISION, OR. NO. A-12, RH COLONY, SY. NOS. 40/1, 40/2 AND 40/3, GUDIVADA REVENUE VILLAGE, PADERU, ALLURI SITHARAMA RAJU, ANDHRA PRADESH - 531 024. 2. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER ST, APPELLATE AUTHORITY, VIJAYAWADA, D NO. 40-5-19/9B, BACK OF NVKR TOWERS, MOGALRAJAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH - 520 010. 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT (COMMERCIAL TAX), A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELEGAPUDI. 522503 4. UNION OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (REVENUE) NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI.110001 2 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.426 of 2026 ...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 a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction, or order A. Quashing the proceedings of the 1st Respondent in Assessment Order issued in Form GST DRC-07 dated 31.08.2024 under Section 73 of the GST Act, 2017, without containing the signature, without containing a Document Identification Number (DIN), without issuing the Intimation in Form GST DRC-01A under Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and without providing an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner as being arbitrary, without jurisdiction, unconstitutional, unreasonable, in contravention of Section 75(4) of the GST Act, 2017, violative of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the GST Act, 2017, in violation to Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India B. Quashing the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent in Endorsement dated 21.05.2025 vide A.O. No. DIN3721052537928 wherein the appeal filed by the Petitioner was rejected as time-barred and condoning the delay in filing the appeal C. Pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 proceedings of the 1st Respondent in Assessment Order issued in Form GST DRC-07 dated 31.08.2024 under Section 73 of the GST Act, 2017, in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ANIL KUMAR BEZAWADA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 3 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.426 of 2026 The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner was served with a summary of the assessment order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 31.08.2024, passed by the 1st respondent, under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for the tax period April 2019 to March 2020. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 2. This summary of the 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 summary of the assessment order. 3. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, on instructions, submits that there is no signature of the assessing officer and does not contain DIN number, on the impugned summary of the 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 4 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.426 of 2026 this Court, in the case of M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant 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.426 of 2026 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 cogent of the fact that the impugned summary of the assessment 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 signature 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 summary of the assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, dated 31.08.2024, issued by the 1st respondent, with liberty to the 1st respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving notice and by assigning a signature 3 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.) 6 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.426 of 2026 and also DIN number to the said order. The period from the date of the impugned summary of the 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: 21.01.2026 KPV 7 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.426 of 2026 165 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 426 of 2026 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 21.01.2026 KPV