Bharat Steel Corporation vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner

BHARAT STEEL CORPORATION, D.NO. 15-8-193/194, JAKEER HUSSAIN NAGAR, 3RD LINE, NANDIVELUGU ROAD, OLD GUNTUR, GUNTUR. GUNTUR DISTRICT. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. SHAIK ALTHAF.

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI. AMARAVATHI.

THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 4. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI - 100 001. ...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 Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction declaring (1) The leavy of tax Under Section 16(2)(c) read with Section 41(2) of the IGST/CGST/SGST Act 2017 by the 1st Respondent in the Proceedings dated 19.04.2025 is not Justified and contrary to Article 14, 19(1)(g). 21. 265 and 300A of the Constitution of India- (2) the action of the 1st Respondent is not justified, since he has not granted an opportunity of personal hearing after filing objections on 24.03.2025 as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the CGST/SGST Act 2017 (3) the action of the 1st Respondent in passing the Proceedings, dated 19.04.2025, by a Composite Order, for the tax period 2022-23 and 2023-24, as per Section 74 of theinstead of passing a separate Order for each period. IGST/CGST/SGST Act, 2017 is not valid in the eye of law (4) the action of the 1st Respondent in issuing the Summary of Show Cause Notice and passing the Order, dated 21.04.2025 under Section 74 of the CGST/.SGST Act 2017 and the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07. dated 21.04.2025 under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act 2017, without any signature either physically or digitally is contrary to Rule 26(3) of the IGST/CGST/SGST Act 2017 is not valid in the eye of law (5) the action of the 1st Respondent in issuing the Summary of Show Cause Notice and passing the Order, dated 21.04.2025 under Section 74 of the CGST/.SGST Act 2017 and the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 21.04.2025 under Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act 2017 without generating DIN in the Notices and Orders as per Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST, dated 23.12.2019 and as per W.P.No.320 of 2022, dated 18.07.2022 of Honble Supreme Court, are not valid and consequently set aside / quash the Proceedings, dated 19.04.2025, the Orders, dated 21.04.2025 and the Summary of the Orders in Form GST DRC-07. dated 21.04.2025 for the tax period 2022-23 and 2023-24 under the IGST/CGST/SGST Act 2017, passed by the 1st Respondent as null and void and 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the Proceedings, dated 19.04.2025, the Orders, dated 21.04.2025 and the Summary of the Orders in Form GST DRC-07, dated 21.04.2025 passed by the is„ Respondent, for the tax period 2022-23 and 2023-24 under the IGST/CGST/SGST Act 2017, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, as otherwise, the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner:

The petitioner was served with a show-cause notice-cum- summary of the assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, dated 21.04.2025, passed by the 1st respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”]. This show-cause notice-cum-summary of the assessment order of the 1st respondent has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.

This show-cause notice-cum-summary of the assessment order is challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said proceedings did not contain a DIN number.

Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, submits that there is no DIN number on the impugned show- cause notice-cum-summary of the assessment 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. 1 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC)

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 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 in the order, which was uploaded in the portal, requires the impugned order to be set aside.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned proceedings, dated 21.04.2025, issued by the 1st respondent, with liberty to the 1st respondent to initiate fresh proceedings, after giving notice to the petitioner and assigning a DIN number to the said order. The period from the date of the impugned show-cause notice-cum-summary of the assessment

2025