Judgment
APHC010067182026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH 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: 3900/2026 Between:
1. VENKATESWARA PESTICIDES, 4/121, MAIN ROAD, KAMAWARAPUKOTA, ELURU, 37, 534449, ANDHRA PRADESH REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. NOTHI SUBBA RAO S/O.
VENKATESWARARAO AGED ABOUT59 YEARS.
...PETITIONER AND 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, JANGAREDDYGUDEMCIRCLE, JANGAREDDYGUDEM ANDHRA PRADESH.-534447 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (CT) DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-522237 3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, 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 topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of theist Respondent in passing the impugned order dated 30-08-2024 levying tax penalty and interest for not filing Form GSTR3B returns in time without considering that the limitation for filing the annual returns has been extended, by Notification No 22/2024 dated 08-10-2024 and Circular No 237/31 /2024- GST dated 15-10-2024 and also section 16 (5) inserted on 08-10 -2024 and
2 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.3900 of 2026
without issuing the DRC 01 and without any DIN number on the order or signature of proper officer and demanding the Petitioner to pay the impugned amounts by urgent notice dated 20-11-2025 as illegal, arbitrary, improper, unjust , unfair, and also section 16 (5) inserted on 08-10-2024 contrary to the provision of GST Act and rules and also violative of principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction and authority, and violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 265 and 300-A of Constitution of India and effecting the rights that are guaranteed by the statue and consequently to set aside the same 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 STAY demand of the disputed amount raised in impugned order dated 30-08-2024 and grant such other relief or reliefs are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. M V J K KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 2.
3 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.3900 of 2026
The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Heard Sri M. V. J. K. Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the respondents.
2.
The petitioner has approached this Court, challenging an order of assessment, dated 30.08.2024, levying tax, penalty and interest, on the petitioner, for not filing Form GSTR 3B returns in time, for the tax period, January, 2020 & February, 2020.
3.
This order is assailed by the petitioner, on the ground that, the time for filing Form GSTR 3B, had been extended till 30.11.2021, by way of a Notification No.22/2024–CENTRAL TAX, dated 08.10.2024, as well as Circular No.237/31/2024–GST, dated 15.10.2024. The petitioner would also contend that, he was unable to seek relief for the ITC, which had already been accrued to the petitioner in view of subsequent insertion of Section 65, on 08.10.2024. The petitioner would also contend that the said order does not contain any DIN number or signature of the Officer.
4.
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.
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.3900 of 2026
5.
However, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the respondents, would contend that the order, under challenge, has been passed, on 30.08.2024, and the petitioner has approached this Court with inordinate delay and such delay has not been properly explained.
6.
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.
7.
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.
8.
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.
9.
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
5 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.3900 of 2026
accept such a contention as neither ignorance of law nor the inability to access the portal, could have been accepted is a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in approaching this Court.
10.
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.
11.
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.
12.
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.
13.
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 order is subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 20% of the disputed tax
6 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.3900 of 2026
within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Such payment shall abide by the result of the assessment order that would be passed in this case. If any payment made or any amount recovered from the petitioner, after the order of assessment has been passed, shall be adjusted against the aforesaid 20% deposit that needs to be made by the petitioner.
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.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J
Date:27.04.2026 KPV
7 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.3900 of 2026
170
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION No: 3900 of 2026 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
27.04.2026
KPV