Psr Infrastructures vs. The Assistant Commissioner

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 topleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the action of the 2 Respondent in issuing assessment order dated 21.7.2023 for the period 2021- 22 under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 in Form DRC -01 without generating the Document identification Number (DIN) on the show cause notice, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and in gross violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the show cause notice as well as the assessment order dated 25.4.2025 passed by the 1st Respondent, as without juri iction as being not authorized, and consequently direct the Respondents to redo the assessment following the principles of natural justice and pass lA 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 grant stay of recovery of the disputed demand pursuant to the impugned assessment order dated 25.4.2025 passed by the 1st Respondent for the tax period 2021-22, pending disposal of the Writ Petition as otherwise the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship. lA NO: 2 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 may be pleased to permit the Petitioner to amend the main prayer in the Writ Petition as under; It is also prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to it is prayed that the Honorable Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in issuing summary of assessment order dated 25.4.2025 for the period 2021-22 under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 in Form DRC -07 as well as the show cause notice dated 21.7.2023 without affixing the signature and generating the Document Identification Number (DIN), as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and in gross violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same as well as the assessment order dated 25.4.2025 passed by the 1st Respondent, as without juri iction.

Th© Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner was served with a summary of the assessment order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 25.04.2025, passed by the 1®* respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for the tax period April 2021 to March 2022. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. This summary of the assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, is challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said proceeding does not contain the signature of the assessing officer and also DIN number, on the impugned summary of the assessment order.

Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, submits that there is no signature of the assessing officer and does not contain DIN number, on the impugned summary of the assessment 3. order. The effect of the absence of the signature, on an assessment order was earlier considered by this Court, in the case of A.V. BhanojI Row

2023. A Division Bench of this Court, had held that the signature, on the assessment order, cannot be dispensed with and that the provisions of 4. 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. M/s. Commissioner ST & ors, 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 6. proceedings, under the G.S.T. Act, came to be considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Goya! Vs. Union of India & Ors\ 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 on the basis of the circular, dated 23.12.2019, issued by the C.B.I.C., had held that non-mention of a DIN number would ' 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC) " 203-. (S3) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.)

This Court is also cognizant of the fact that the impugned order has been passed some time back and the present Writ Petition has been filed with delay. However, Rule 26(3) of the COST 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, impugned summary of the assessment order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 25.04.2025, issued by the 1®* respondent, with liberty to the 1®‘ respondent to * 2024 {H8) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.)

Deputy Director -2, AP State Directorate of Revenue Intelligence D. No. 59-3-8/2, Musunuri Narayana Street, Ashok Nagar, Mogalrajapuram, Vijayawada-520010

The Special Commissioner, A.P. State Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (APSRDI), D.No.59-3-8/2, Musunuri Narayana Street, Ashok Nagar, Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada - 520010

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (CT-II) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

The Union of India, Rep. by rts Secretary (Finance) Ministry of Finance, * , North Block New Delhi 110001 "i w ...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 to issue a Writ of Mandamus Or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the action of the 2"^' Respondent in issuing summary of assessment order dated 25.4.2025 for the period 2021-22 under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 in Form DRC-07 as well as the show cause notice dated 21.7.2023 without affixing the signature and generating the Document Identification Number (DIN), as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and in gross violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same as well as the assessment order dated 25.4.2025 passed by the 1st Respondent, as without juri iction, nonest and void ab initio and contrary to provisions of Section 160 and 169 of the CGST Act, and cdhsequently direct the Respondents to redo the assessment following the principles of natural justice (Main Prayer was amended as per c.o.dt.24.09.2025 Vide I.A.No.2 of 2025 in W.P.No.20915of2025.) lA 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 to grant stay of recovery of the dispcited demand pursuant to the impugned assessment order dated 25.4.2025 passed by the 1®' Respondent for the tax period 2021-22, pending disposai of the Writ Petition as otherwise the Petitioner will be put to severe loss ahd hardship. lA NO: 3 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 to permit the Petitioner to raise the additional grounds narrated in paragraphs 3 to 9 above, in the interest of justice. f lA NO: 4 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 GPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioner to file Summary of Assessment order dated 25.4.2025 as additional material in the Writ Petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVASA RAO KUDUPUDI Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX Counsel for the Respondent No.5: ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following order:

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 topleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the action of the 2 Respondent in issuing assessment order dated 21.7.2023 for the period 2021- 22 under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 in Form DRC -01 without generating the Document Identification Number (DIN) on the show cause notice, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and in gross violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the show cause notice as well as the assessment order dated 25.4.2025 passed by the 1st Respondent, as without juri iction as being not authorized, and consequently direct the Respondents to redo the assessment following the principles of natural justice and pass lA 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 grant stay of recovery of the disputed demand pursuant to the impugned assessment order dated 25.4.2025 passed by the 1st Respondent for the tax period 2021-22, pending disposal of the Writ Petition as otherwise the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship. lA NO: 2 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 may be pleased to permit the Petitioner to amend the main prayer in the Writ Petition as under: It is also prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to it is prayed that the Honorable Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in issuing summary of assessment order dated 25.4.2025 for the period 2021-22 under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 in Form DRC -07 as well as the show cause notice dated 21.7.2023 without affixing the signature and generating the Document Identification Number (DIN), as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and in gross violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same as well as the assessment order dated 25.4.2025 passed by the 1st Respondent, as without juri iction.

The Court made the following order: (perHon’ble Sh Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner was served with a summary of the assessment order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 25.04.2025, passed by the 1®' respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for the tax period April 2021 to March 2022. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

This summary of the assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, is challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said proceeding does not contain the signature of the assessing officer and also DIN number, on the impugned summary of the assessment order.

Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, submits that there is no signature of the assessing officer and does not contain DIN number, on the impugned summary of the assessment order. The effect of the absence of the signature, on an assessment order was earlier considered by this Court, in the case of A.V. Bhanoji Row

14.02.2023. A Division Bench of this Court, had held that the signature, on the assessment order, cannot be dispensed with and that the provisions of 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. M/s. Commissioner ST & ors, 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 Goya! Vs. Union of India & Ors\ 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 6. 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 on the basis of the circular, dated 23.12.2019,

issued by the C.B.I.C., had held that non-mention of a DIN number would ^ 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC) ^ 2a2^ (S8) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.) Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam^, had also held that 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 summary of the assessment order would have to be set aside.

This Court is also cognizant of the fact that the impugned order has been passed some time back and the present Writ Petition has been filed with delay. However, Rule 26(3) of the COST 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 Form GST DRC-07, dated 25.04.2025, issued by the 1®‘ respondent, with liberty to the 1^‘ respondent to 10. ^ 2024 [d8) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.)