APHC010406772026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 10th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 22409 OF 2026 Between: 1. M/s. Sadasiva Works,, GST IN-37AGLPV0362R1 ZI Rep. by its Proprietor, Mr. V. Nelamageswara Reddy D.Nq.5/1, OC colony, Manchalakatta Village, GudiVemula Mandal, Kurnool-518508 Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh ...Petitioner AND 1. The Assistant Commissioner ST, Nandyal -I circle, MSR Complex, Opp Medicare Hospital, Near RTC Busstand, Nandyal-518501, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh 2. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (CT-II) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi-522503, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 3. The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary (Finance) Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi 110001 ...Respondents 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 toissue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in issuing assessment 2 order dated 3.10.2024 for the period 2022-213 under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and summary of assessment order Form DRC -07, without signing either physically or digitally on the summaries and without affixing document identification number and, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Goods - and Service Tax Act, 2017 and in gross violation of principles of natural justice, and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to redo the assessment following the principles of natural justice setting aside the impugned orders and notices 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 stay of recovery of the disputed demand pursuant to the impugned assessment order dated 3.10.2024 passed by the 1st Respondent for the tax period 2022-23 under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, pending disposal of the Writ Petition as otherwise the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRINIVASA RAO KUDUPUDI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following order: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION No: 22409 OF 2026 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.A.V. Sai Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2. With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court, challenging order of assessment passed by the 1st respondent dated 03.10.2024 inter alia on the main ground that the said order does not contain Document Identification Number (DIN). 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, Visakhapatnam 2 and had held that, the absence of a DIN number would be sufficient to invalidate the said order. 4. However, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, would contend that the order under challenge has been passed on 03.10.2024 and the petitioner has approached this Court with inordinate delay and such delay has not been properly explained. He submits that writ 1 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.) 2 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.) 4 petition is not maintainable, devoid of merits and therefore liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents are claiming that the order is served on the petitioner by uploading the same in the portal. 6. Learned Assistant 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 Anr., 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 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 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 matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer to pass appropriate assessment orders, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in accordance with the provisions of the GST Act. 6 13. This order, however, 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 copy of this order. Such payment shall abide by the result of the assessment order that would be passed in this case. Any payment made or any amount recovered from the petitioner, after the passing of the impugned order, shall be adjusted against the aforesaid 20%. Coercive steps initiated against the petitioner, including attachment, if any, for recovery of dues under the impugned order shall also stand revoked upon payment of 20% of the disputed tax. 14. 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. 15. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J _______________ T.C.D.SEKHAR, J GVK 7 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION No. 22409 OF 2026 Dt. 10.08.2026 GVK