APHC010312962026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 16382/2026 Between: 1. M/S. RADHA KRISHNA INFRA,, D. NO 2-127, 184 GOLLAPALLE VILLAGE, YADAMARI (MANDAL), CHITTOOR (DIST.) - 517422, ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR EKAMBARAM SARANA. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST, PALAMANERU CIRCLE, NEXT TO DEVI THEATRE, KATTAMANCHI, TIRUPATI ROAD, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517001. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (CT) DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY (FINANCE), MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001. ...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 tobe pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly in the nature of MANDAMUS declaring that the impugned Order of Interest and Penalty under Section 74 in Form GST DRC 07 vide Case Id 2 No AD371023002044W, dated 20-11-2024, for the F.Y.s 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 read with Summary of Orders in Form GST DRC -07, dated 20-11-2024, passed by the First Respondent which is a single composite order passed for four Assessment Years, which does not contain DIN, the Summary of Orders in Form GST DRC-07 of which do not contain any physical or digital signature and are unsigned orders, which was passed by invoking S. 74 even though the ingredients for invoking the same are not available, by which penalty that too @ 100percent (for three years) and @ 25percent for one year, was imposed without any wrong doing on the part of the Petitioner, as without jurisdiction, without authority, contrary to law, unjustified, and illegal and consequently set aside the same and pass such 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 be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings, including recovery of interest and Penalty, pursuant to the impugned Order of Interest and Penalty passed by the First Respondent under Section 74 in Form GST DRC 07 vide Case ID No:AD371023002044W, dated 10-11- 2024, for the F.Y.s 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 read with Summary of Orders, and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 3 The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri G. Narendra Chetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court, challenging the order, passed by the respondent authorities, dated 20.11.2024 on the ground that the said order do not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN) or RFN number and the same is vitiated by the lack of such numbers. 3. This Court had considered this issue earlier in M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa1 and in Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs The Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam2 and had held that the absence of a DIN number would be sufficient to invalidate the said orders. 4. However, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the respondents, would contend that the petitioner has approached this Court with inordinate delay and such delay has not been properly explained. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said order had not been served on the petitioner, in the conventional method and 1 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.) 2 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.) 4 the respondents are claiming that the order is served on the petitioner by uploading the same in the portal. 6. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, would contend that Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, 2017 prescribes that the uploading of the orders, in the portal, is a method of service, on the registered persons and in that view of the matter, it must be held that service has been effected on the petitioner. 7. The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in M/s. Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, in Writ Tax No.2707 of 2025, had held that uploading the order in the portal, mentioned by the GST Authorities, would not be sufficient service of the order on the registered person. This Court has taken a contrary view in W.P.No.5397 of 2026. 8. However, the fact remains that a very large number of registered persons have approached this Court with the contention that they were unable to access the portal either on account of their ignorance or on account of the fact that the persons, authorized by them, to act on their behalf, are not informing them of such orders. In the normal course, this Court would not accept such a contention as neither ignorance of law nor the inability to access the portal, could have been accepted as a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in approaching this Court. 5 9. This Court is also not unaware of the practical difficulties that have arisen on account of the introduction of the GST regime and the introduction of the online mechanism, under this regime, for the administration of tax collection, etc. 10. Keeping in view the hardships that are being faced by various registered persons, especially in cases where the orders suffer from patent irregularities, the impugned orders of assessment would have to be set aside. 11. In the circumstances, with a view to balance both the difficulties being faced by the registered persons and the need for the State to maintain its administration of tax collection, it would be appropriate that writ petitions, filed by such registered persons, with delay, can be considered, subject to the registered persons paying 20% of the disputed tax. We are also fortified, in this course of action, in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P.No.1474 of 2026. 12. In these circumstances, keeping in view the fact that the present order, under challenge, suffer from an inherent defect of absence of a DIN number, the same is set aside and the assessment is remanded back to the Assessing Officer to pass appropriate orders, after giving due opportunity of hearing, available to the petitioner, under the provisions of the GST Act. This order is subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax, within a period of six (06) weeks. Such deposit shall abide by the decision in the order of assessment. Any payment made or any amount 6 recovered from the petitioner, after the passing of the impugned order, shall be adjusted against the aforesaid 20%. Coercive steps taken against the petitioner, including attachment, for recovery of the dues under this order shall also stand set aside. 13. Needless to say, the period from the date of filling of this Writ Petition till the date of receipt of this order by the Assessing Officer, shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation and all issues are left open to be raised by the petitioner before the Assessing Officer. 14. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. 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:-22.06.2026 BSM 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION No: 16382/2026 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 22.06.2026 BSM