Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : 24.06.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010309712026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3591] WEDNESDAY, THE 24th DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 16468/2026 Between: 1. KARTHIK CONSTRUCTIONS, GSTIN 37ABBPY6I38P1ZT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI YERRAM REDDY SARANYA KARTHIK, FLAT NO 78, CH V R ENCLAVE, TREND SET MEADOWS, 8TH LINE DEVI NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA, ANDHRA PRADESH, 520003 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONERSTII, SURYARAOPET CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA-II, A.P, 520 002. 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER ST, VIJAYAWADA DIVISION, VIJAYAWADA, A.P, 520 001. 3. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (CT) DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P, 522 238. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA BANK, M.C.H TANK BUND BRANCH, GHMC BHAVAN, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX LIBERTY, TANK BUND ROAD, HYDERABAD - 500 062, TELANGANA ...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 Wirt of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or 2 RRR, J & GTK, J W.P.No.16468 of 2026 Order or Direction declaring (1) the action of the 1st Respondent in passing the Order, dated 24.06.2025, the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC- 07, dated 24.06.2025 and the Proceedings, dated 24.06.2025 and levying CGST/SGST under Section 74(11) of the CGST/SGST Act 2017, without DIN in the Order, the Summary of the Order and Proceedings, and there is no signature of the Respondent either physically or digitally in order dated. 24.06.2025, for the tax period 2023-24 under the CGST/SGST Act 2017, as arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the CGST/SGST Act 2017, without jurisdiction as per Section 74(11) of the CGST/SGST Act 2017, to make the assessment, as illegal and contrary to Article 14, 19(l)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India. (2) the action of the 1st Respondent in passing the Order dated 24.06.2025 and the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC- 07, dated 24.06.2025 and proceedings dated. 24.06.2025, levying Tax, Interest and Penalty under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Acts 2017, instead of under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Acts 2017, is contrary to the provisions of the Acts and is not valid in the eye of law as null and void, and 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 direct the 1st Respondent to revoke the bank attachments vide Garnishee Notice in Form GST DRC-13 issued under Section 79(1 )(c) GST Act, 2017, issued by the 1st Respondent vide RC No. ETA- 6/37ABBPY6138P1ZT/2025 dated 02.06.2026. issued to the 4th Respondent State Bank of India Bank Manager, M.C.H Tank Bund Branch, Respective Current Account No. 62011619904, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, as otherwise, the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship. IA NO: 2 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKATRAM REDDY MANTUR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 3 RRR, J & GTK, J W.P.No.16468 of 2026 The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri M. Venkatram Reddy, 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 the order of assessment, passed by the 1st respondent, on 24.06.2025, on the ground that the said order does 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 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 24.06.2025 and the petitioner has approached this Court with inordinate delay and such delay has not been properly explained. 1 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.) 2 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.) 4 RRR, J & GTK, J W.P.No.16468 of 2026 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 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 5 RRR, J & GTK, J W.P.No.16468 of 2026 access the portal, could have been accepted is a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in approaching this Court. 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, 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 6 RRR, J & GTK, J W.P.No.16468 of 2026 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 recovered from the petitioner, after the passing of the impugned orders, shall be adjusted against the aforesaid 20%. 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. Any garnishee notice, if issued, shall also stand set aside. 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 ________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J Date:24.06.2026 MJA Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Recorded Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 7 RRR, J & GTK, J W.P.No.16468 of 2026 93 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 16468/2026 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 24.06.2026 MJA