APHC010149982026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 8783/2026 Between: 1. M/S SRI HAYANIDHI INFRATECH SERVICES, D.NO.1-140, KONGANAPALLE VILLAGE, RAMAKUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. REP. BY ITS MG.PARTNER MR.K.R.CHINNA KRISHNA ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, APPELLATE AUTHORITY, TIRUPATHI. TIRUPATHI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, PALAMANER, CHITTOOR DIVISION, CHITTOOR. 3. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, CHITTOOR DIVISION, CHITTOOR. 4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (CT) DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI. , (4TH RESPONDENT IS NOT NECESSARY PARTY) 2 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.8783 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 to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction declaring (1) the action of the 1st Respondent in not considering the contentions of the Petitioner raised in the Grounds of Appeal and passing Endorsement, dated period 2018-19 in a summary manner, as arbitrary.13.08.2025 for contrary to the provisions of the CGST/SGST Act 2017 and not valid in the eye of law, in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Rule of Law (2) the action of the 2nd Respondent in passing the the Order, dated 28.04.2024, the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 28.04.2024 and Annexure to DRC-07, dated 28.04.2024, for the tax period 2018-19 particularly without signing in the Notice in Form GST DRC-01, 30.01.2024 and also in the Order, dated 28.04.2024, the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 28.04.2024 which is contrary to the provisions of the CGST/APGST Acts, 2017 (3) the action of the 2nd Respondent in passing the Orders, without generating DIN in the Notice in Form GST DRC-01, dated 30.01.2024 and also in the Order, dated 28.04.2024, the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 28.04.2024, is not valid in the eye of law (4) the Orders of the 2nd Respondent is contrary to sub-section (2) of Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Acts 2017 and barred by limitation (5) The action of the 2nd Respondent in passing the DRC-01, dated 30.01.2024 and also in the Order, dated 28.04.2024, the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 28.04.2024 without DIN as contemplated under the Act and consequently set aside both the Endorsement, dated 13.08.2025 passed by the 1st Respondent and the Order, dated 28.04.2024, the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 28.04.2024 and Attachment to DRC-07, dated 28.04.2024 passed by the 2nd Respondent, for the tax period 2018-19 under the IGST/CGST/SGST Act 2017, as null and void and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 3 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.8783 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 to Suspend the Operation of the Appeal Order, dated 13.08.2025 passed by the 1®‘ Respondent and the Order, dated 28.04.2024, the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 28.04.2024 and Attachment to DRC-07, dated 28.04.2024 passed by the 2nd Respondent, for the tax period 2018-19 under the IGST/CGST/SGST Acts 2017, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, as otherwise, the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship. and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following: 4 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.8783 of 2026 The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner herein, which is registered under the GST Act, was subjected to order of assessment, dated 28.04.2024. An appeal filed against the said order came to be rejected, on the ground that, the appeal has been filed beyond the period of limitation provided for filing of such appeal. 2. Aggrieved by the order of assessment, the petitioner has approached this Court, on the ground that, the order of assessment does not contain a DIN number. 3. 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. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, would contend that the petitioner having availed the remedy of 1 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC) 5 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.8783 of 2026 appeal and having failed in the said appeal, cannot be permitted to challenge the order of assessment. 5. A Division Bench of this Court, in its order, dated 18.12.2023, in W.P.No.31675 of 2023, had held, in similar circumstances that a challenge to the original order would be maintainable even if the appeal has been disposed of. 6. Following the said Judgment, this Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order, dated 28.04.2024, and remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer, for passing fresh order in accordance with law. Needless to say, 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, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J _______________ T.C.D.SEKHAR,J Date:08.04.2026 CMK