Maddala Industries vs. Assistant Commissioner
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
APHC010293332025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Juri iction) [3529] TUE AY,THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NOs: 14704, 14715, 14717, 14721, 14813 & 14857/2025 Between:
MADDALA INDUSTRIES, PLOT NO.5, BLOCK 43, INDIRA AUTONAGAR, IDA, GUNTUR 522 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MADDALA VEKATA VEERA RAGHAVAIAH.
...PETITIONER AND 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MANGALAGIRI CIRCLE, GUNTUR DIVISION, GUNTUR.
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST, PEDAKAKANI CIRCLE, GUNTUR I DIVISION, GUNTUR.
DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST, PEDAKAKANI CIRCLE, GUNTUR I DIVISION, GUNTUR.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT (CT), A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...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 a Writ or Order or direction particularly on in the nature of Writ of Mandamus setting aside the impugned Summary of the
2
Order in Form GST DRC 07, dated 24.11.2021, vide Reference Number ZD3711210053028, for the tax period September, 2020, under Section 62(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, followed by assessment order under Section 62(1) of the CGST Act, 2917, in Form GST ASMT 13, dated 12.11.2021, in Reference Number 37AAFFM9727MIZL/ASMT 13 / SEP 2020, passed by the first respondent for the month of September, 2020, without DIN Number and without digitally signature as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017,/ APGST Act, 2017, and contrary to the law laid down by this Honble Court, and or to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 pending disposal of the Writ Petition grant stay of all further proceedings arising in pursuance of the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC 07, dated 24.11.2021, vide Reference Number ZD3711210053028, for the tax period September, 2020, under Section 62(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, followed by assessment order under Section 62(1) of the CGST Act, 2917, in Form GST ASMT 13, dated
2021, in reference number 37AAFFM9727MIZL/ ASMT 13 / SEP 2020, passed by the first respondent for the month of September, 2020, or to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
S SURI BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S):
GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 2. 3
The Court made the following common order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Heard Sri S.Suribabu, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. A. V. Sai Kumar, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the respondents.
The petitioner was served with order of assessments, in Form GST DRC-07, dated 24.11.2021, passed by the 1st respondent, under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for the tax period, 2020- 2021. These orders are being challenged by the petitioner in all these writ petitions.
These assessment orders, in Form GST DRC-07, are challenged by the Sections-160 & 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, would not rectify such a defect. Following this Judgment, another Division Bench of this Court, in the case of M/s. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner, in W.P.No.29397 of 2023, decided on 10.11.2023, had set aside the impugned assessment order.
Another Division Bench of this Court by its Judgment, dated 19.03.2024, in the case of M/s. SRS Traders Vs The. Assistant Commissioner ST & ors, in W.P.No.5238 of 2024, following the aforesaid two Judgments, had held that the absence of the signature of the assessing officer, on the assessment order, would render the assessment order invalid and set aside the said order.
The question of the effect of non-inclusion of DIN number on proceedings, under the G.S.T. Act, came to be considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after noticing the provisions of the Act and the circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (herein referred to as “C.B.I.C.”), had held that an order, which does not contain a DIN number would be invalid.
A Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa 2, on the basis of the circular, dated 23.12.2019, bearing No.128/47/2019-GST, issued by the C.B.I.C., had held that non-mention of a DIN number would mitigate against
1 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC) 2 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.)
5 non-mention of a DIN number would require the order to be set aside.
In view of the aforesaid judgments and the circular issued by the C.B.I.C., the non-mention of a DIN number and absence of the signature of the assessing officer, in the impugned assessment order would have to be set aside in all these writ petitions.
This Court is also cogent of the fact that the impugned summary of the assessment order has been passed some time back and the present Writ Petition has been filed with delay. However, Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 stipulates that service of notice or orders, without signature, would not amount to service at all. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras, in T.V.L. Deepa The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in M/s. Bambino Agro Industries 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. 19. In these circumstances, keeping in view the fact that the assessment orders in all these writ petitions, under challenge, suffers from an inherent defect of absence of a DIN number and the signature on the impugned order, 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
8
under the impugned order, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Such deposit shall abide by the decision in the orders of assessment. Any payment made or any amount recovered from the petitioner, after the passing of the impugned order, shall be adjusted against the aforesaid 20%.
Needless to say, the period from the date of filling of these Writ Petitions 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.
Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are 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: 05.05.2026 DSB
9
237
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 14704, 14715, 14717, 14721, 14813 & 14857 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 05.05.2026
DSB
Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.