Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : 24.06.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010313262026 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: 16484/2026 Between: 1. RAVI COTTON TRADERS, REPRESENTED BY SHRI VELIDI SRINIVASA RAO ETUKURROAD, 20-18-259, SRIPATHI COTTON GINNING MILL, 7TH LANE, DS NAGAR, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522 006. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONERST, PATNAM BAZAAR CIRCLE, GUNTUR I DIVISION, D. NO 11-1-73/1, 1ST FLOOR, VASUNDHARA BUILDINGS, RAJAJI BHAVAN, JINNA TOWER CENTRE, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522 001. 2. THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST, PATNAM BAZAAR CIRCLE, GUNTUR I DIVISION, D. NO 11-1-73/1, 1ST FLOOR, VASUNDHARA BUILDINGS, RAJAJI BHAVAN, JINNA TOWER CENTRE, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522 001. 3. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER ST, APPELLATE AUTHORITY, VIJAYAWADA, D NO. 40-5-19/9B, BACK OF NVKR TOWERS, MOGALRAJAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH - 520 010. 4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT (COMMERCIAL TAX), A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELEGAPUDI. 522238 5. UNION OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (REVENUE) NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 110001 ...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 & GTK, J W.P.No.16484 of 2026 pleased topleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction, or order A. Quashing the proceedings of the 1ST Respondent in the impugned Assessment Order passed in Form GST DRC-07 vide Ref No. ZD371220002675S dated 10.12.2020 (Annexure P-1) under Section 74 of the GST Act, 2017, without containing a Document Identification Number (DIN), unsigned order, without issuing Intimation Notice in Form GST DRC 01A as per Section 142(1A), without passing a Detailed Demand Order as contemplated under Section 74(9) AND Section 75(6) of the GST Act, 2017 and without providing any opportunity of hearing as per Section 75(4) of the GST Act, 2017, as being arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, unreasonable, violative of the principles of natural justice and also contrary to the provisions of the GST Act, 2017. B. Quashing the proceedings of the 3RD Respondent in Endorsement for Rejection of Appeal vide A.O No. DIN3731032636195 dated 31.03.2026 (Annexure P-2) rejecting the appeal filed by the Petitioner as time-barred and prayed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal on account of no proper service of the impugned assessment order dated 10.12.2020. C. Consequently, to set aside and quash the recovery proceedings initiated under Section 79 of the GST Act, 2017, by the 2ND Respondent through property attachment notice in Form GST DRC 16 vide DIN No. 3721042654024 dated 21.04.2026 (Annexure P-3) for recovery of the demands confirmed in the impugned assessment order and direct the Respondents to remove/lift the attachment on the immovable property. D. And 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 proceedings of the 1ST Respondent in the Impugned Order issued in Form GST DRC-07 dated 10.12.2020 under Section 74 of the GST Act, 2017, in the interest of justice and pas 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 pleased to stay the consequent recovery proceedings initiated by the 2ND Respondent vide property attachment notice dated 21.04.2026, 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 & GTK, J W.P.No.16484 of 2026 The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri Anil Kumar Bezawada, 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 summary of the order of assessment, passed by the 1st respondent, on 10.12.2020, 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 10.12.2020 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.16484 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.16484 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.16484 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. 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.16484 of 2026 78 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 16484/2026 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 24.06.2026 MJA