APHC010300792026 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: 16037/2026 Between: 1. M/S VASISTA ENGINEERING, REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, ALLURI SRIDHAR VARMA, S/O SATYANARAYANA RAJU, RIO D. NO 27-8-27, SUBBA RAYUDU TEMPLE, BHIMAVARAM,WEST GODAVARIDISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 534 260. 2. ALLURI SRIDHAR VARMA, S/O SATYANARAYANA RAJU, RIO D. NO 27-8-27, SUBBA RAYUDU TEMPLE, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 534 260. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI- 110001. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP .BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPT (COMMERCIAL TAX), A.P. SECRETARIAT COMPLEX,VELAGAPUDI 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST, BHIMAVARAM CIRCLE, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT,534201 ...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 2 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.16037 of 2026 pleased topleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, direction or order quashing the impugned order passed in Form GST DRC-07, Reference No.ZD370824027588V dated 30.08.2024 by the 3rd Respondent, disallowing the ITC of Rs. 4,77,688/- and raising a total demand of Rs. 7,96,653/- as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to Section 16(5) of the CGST Act/APGS(f Act, 2017, and being contrary to Section 16(5) of the CGST/APGST Act, 2017, which does not bear any DIN and without authority of law and consequently set aside the same along with all the recovery and attachment proceedings or to 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 operation of the impugned order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 30.08.2024, in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. DIMILI ESHWARSAI TEJA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 3 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.16037 of 2026 The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri Dimili Eshwarsai Teja, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court, challenging an order of assessment, passed by the 3rd respondent, on 30.08.2024, on the ground that, the said order does not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN) and the same is vitiated by the lack of such numbers. 3. This Court had considered this issue earlier in the case of M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa1 and in the case of 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 order. 4. However, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the respondents, would contend that the order, under challenge, has been passed, on 30.08.2024, and 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 copy of the said order had not been served on the petitioner, in the conventional 1 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.) 2 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.) 4 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.16037 of 2026 method and 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 the uploading of the order, in the portal, as 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, who 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 is a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in approaching this Court. 5 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.16037 of 2026 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 depositing 20% of the disputed tax, under the impugned order. 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, suffers 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 from the date of receipt of this order. Such payment shall abide by the result of the assessment order that 6 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.16037 of 2026 would be passed in this case. If any payment made or any amount recovered from the petitioner, after the order of assessment has been passed, shall be adjusted against the aforesaid 20% deposit that needs to be made by the petitioner. 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 KPV 7 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.16037 of 2026 119 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION No: 16037 of 2026 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 22.06.2026 KPV