BharatTaxGST

M/S. Gvk Digital Flex Printing vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)

Original PDF →
WP/17025/2025HC Andhra PradeshGSTCNR APHC01032292202508 July 2025Bench: R RAGHUNANDAN RAO,SUMATHI JAGADAM7 pages
For Petitioner: SRI M. V. J. K. KUMARSFor Respondent: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
APHC010322922025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF JULY' TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE - PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 17025 OF 2025 V--' Between: M/s. GVK Digital Flex Printing, D.No 19-4-48A, Subbarao Street, STV Nagar, Near Passport Office, Tirupati - 517501 Rep. by its Proprietor Sri. Madi Neni Gnanendra Kumar, S/o Madineni Venkatararpana, Aged about 33 Years. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Deputy Commissioner (sf). Special Circle Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The Additional Commissioner (ST)^ The Appellate Authority, Tirupati - 517501, Andhra Pradesh. 3. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (CT) Department, Pradesh. 4. Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi-110001. Chittor Division Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra ...RESPONDENTS V / Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution circumstances stated i pleased to issue an of India praying that in the in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be appropriate Writ, Order or direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the, action of the Respondent in passing the impugned order dated 05-12-2022 GST Act 2017 in DIN No. DIN370512222886o in not following the principles of natural justice, and the order DRC-07 does not bear signature and the show cause notice does not bear passed under Section 74 of any DIN number or any Signature without and does not meet the ingredients providing opportunity to personal hearing of section 74 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, without authority of law and jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the GST Act 2017 violative of articles 14, 19(l)(g), 21, 265 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the same. " LA NO: 1 OF 207.^ Petition under Section 151 CPC in the affidavit filed i praying that in the circumstances stated in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant STAY of collection of tax, penalty and interest as levied by the 1« Respondent pursuant to the impugned order dated 05-12-2022 in DIN No. DIN3705122228g00 pending disposal of the writ petition.' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. V. J. K. KUMARS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX Counsel for the Respondent No.4: THE ADDL. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

The Court made the following order:

APHC010322922025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl (Special Original Juri iction) [3541] Elr-> WEDNE AY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 17025/2025 Between: 1.M/S. GVK DIGITAL FLEX PRINTING, D.NO 19-4-48A, SUBBARAO STREET, STV NAGAR, NEAR PASSPORT OFFICE, TIRUPATI - 517501 REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. MADI NENI GNANENDRA KUMAR, S/0 MADINENI VENKATARAMANA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ST, SPECIAL CIRCLE. CHITTOR DIVISION, CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2.THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER ST, THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, TIRUPATI - 517501 ANDHRA PRADESH.

3.

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (CT) DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4.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 V.

I " a Writ in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 1st Kespondent in passing the impugned order dated 05-12-2022 passed under Sec„on 74 of GST Act 2017 in DIN No^ D,N3705122228800 in“llolg principles of natural justice, and the order DRC-07 does not bear signature and the show cause notice does not bear any DIN number Signature without providing opportunity to meet the ingredients of section 74 without authority of law and juri iction GST Act 2017 , violative of Constitution of India and lA NO: 1 OF pnof; PeWon under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated Resn I \ levied by the 1st DINSTOst^L^Rnr’ 'IP'Pd 05-12-2022 in DIN No. UIN3705122228800 pending disposal of the writ petition or any personal hearing and does not illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the provisions of the articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 265 and 300-A of consequently to set aside the as improper. the same Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.M VJ K KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent{S);

1.

GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX W.P.No.17025 of 2025 The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sh Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner herein, which is registered under the GST Act, was subjected to impugned proceedings, dated 22.10.2022. An appeal, filed against the said proceedings, came to be rejected, on the ground that, the appeal has been filed beyond the period of limitation provided for filing of such appeal. Aggrieved by the said impugned proceedings, the petitioner has 2. approached this Court, on the ground that, the impugned proceedings does not contain a DIN number. The question of the effect of non-inclusion of DIN number on 3. 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 non-est and invalid. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, would 4. contend that the petitioner having availed the remedy of appeal and having failed in the said appeal, cannot be permitted to challenge the impugned proceedings. ^ 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC)

RRR, J &JS,J A Division Bench of this Court, in its order, dated 18.12.2023 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 5. , in of.

6.

Following the said Judgment, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings, dated 22.10.2022 matter back to the Assessing Officer, for accordance with law. Needless to and remanding the passing fresh proceedings in say, the period from the date of the impugned proceedings, fill the date of receipt of this order Shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation. There shall be As a sequel, interlocutory applications no order as to costs. pending, if any shall stand closed. M. PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //// i\ 7' SECTION OFFICER To,

1.

The Deputy Commissioner (ST), Special Circle, Chittor Division Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh.

2.

The Additional Commissioner (ST), The Appellate Authority, Tirupati - 517501 Andhra Pradesh.

3.

The Principal Secretary, Revenue (CT) Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

4.

The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Union of In'ctia, New Delhi-110001. 5. One CC to Sri M. V. J. K. Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]

6.

One CC to the Addl. Solicitor General of India, High Court of A.P.[OPUC]

7.

Two CCs to GP for Commercial Tax, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]

8.

Two CD Copies.

HIGH COURT DATE0:09/07/2025 ORDER WP No. 17025 OF 2025 g( 18 OCT 2025 c^tiofi^AAr ALLOW^ THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS %

Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.