Judgment
APHC010650122025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 11604/2026 Between:
1. M/S.
G BALA VEKATAREDDY GUNDUPAPALA, GSTIN- 37CGNPR5073H1ZT
REP.
BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR.
G.BALAVENKATA REDDY 1/117, MIN ROAD, GUNDUPAPALA VILLAGE GOSPADU MANDAL, KUNROOL - 51813, ANDHRA PRADESH
...PETITIONER AND 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, (ST) NANDYAL -II CIRCLE, NANDYAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (CT-II) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY (FINANCE) MINISTRY OF FINANCE, 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 pleased toleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in issuing assessment order dated 7.2.2025 for the period 2023-24 under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and summary of assessment order Form DRC -
2 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.11604 of 2026
07, notice in ASMT_10, without signing either physically or digitally 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 as the order was passed without issuing show cause notice, and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to redo the assessment following the principles of natural justice setting aside the impugned orders and notices 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 condone the delay of 132 days re-representing the WPSR No.49378/2025 in the interest of justice, and pass 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 grant stay of recovery of the disputed demand pursuant to the impugned assessment order dated 7.2.2025 passed by the 1®* Respondent for the tax period 2023-24 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:
1. SRINIVASA RAO KUDUPUDI Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX
3 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.11604 of 2026
The Court made the following Order:
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Kudupudi, 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 07.02.2025, 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 07.02.2025 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 & TCDS, J W.P.No.11604 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 & TCDS, J W.P.No.11604 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 & TCDS, J W.P.No.11604 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
________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J
Date:29.04.2026 MJA
7 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.11604 of 2026
156
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 11604/2026 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
29.04.2026
MJA