Judgment
APHC010233552026
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: 12162/2026 Between:
1. M/S. REPA INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR.
K. NAGA VENKATA SWAMY NAIDU, 72-14-8/5, 202, SHANMUKH HEIGHTS, BABA NAGAR, AVA ROAD, NEAR GAIL OFFICE RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT-533 106.
...PETITIONER AND 1. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER ST FAC, APPELLATE AUTHORITY, VIJAYAWADA-520 007.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ST, ARYAPURAM CIRCLE, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM ANDHRA PRADESH-533 104.
3. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI-110 001.
4. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS, GST POLICY WING, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI-110 066, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER (GST).
5. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (CT) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522 237
2 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.12162 of 2026
...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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction - (a) declaring that the impugned order of the 2nd Respondent dated 24.8.2024 and order in appeal passed by 1St Respondent dated 8.12.2025 for tax period 2019-20 as being void, barred by limitation, illegal for not containing any valid DIN, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction for applying the conditions in Section 16(2)(aa) of the GST Act for a period prior to its enforcement on 1.1.2022 and (b) alternatively, set-aside the appellate order dated 8.12.2025 passed by the 1st Respondent dismissing the Petitioners statutory appeal on the ground of delay and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to decide the appeal on the merits of the assessment after considering the delay in filing appeal by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 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 grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order of the 2nd Respondent and order in appeal of 1St Respondent dated 24.8.2024 & 8.12.2025 respectively and pending disposal of the Writ Petition as otherwise the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and`hardship.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 2.
3 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.12162 of 2026
The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Heard Sri Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri S. A. V. Sai Kumar, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the respondents.
2.
The petitioner herein, which is registered under the GST Act, was subjected to order of assessment, dated 24.08.2024. An appeal filed against the said order came to be rejected, on the ground that, the appeal has been filed beyond the period of limitation provided for filing of such appeal.
3.
Aggrieved by the order of assessment, the petitioner has approached this Court, on the ground that, the order of assessment does not contain a DIN number.
4.
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 non-est and invalid.
5.
The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the respondents, would contend that the petitioner having availed the remedy
1 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC)
4 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.12162 of 2026
of appeal and having failed in the said appeal, cannot be permitted to challenge the order of assessment.
6.
A Division Bench of this Court, in its order, dated 18.12.2023, in W.P.No.31675 of 2023, had held, in similar circumstances that a challenge to the original order would be maintainable even if the appeal has been disposed of.
7.
Following the said Judgment, this Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order, dated 24.08.2024, and remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer, for passing fresh orders in accordance with law.
8.
This order shall be 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 this order. Any amount paid, after the passing of the impugned order, dated 24.08.2024, the same shall be adjusted against the aforesaid 20% deposit.
9.
Needless to say, the period from the date of the impugned assessment order, till the date of receipt of this order shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation.
There shall be no order as to costs.
5 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.12162 of 2026
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed.
________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
__________________ T. C. D. SEKHAR, J
Date:29.04.2026 KPV
6 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.12162 of 2026
162
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION No:12162 of 2026 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
29.04.2026
KPV