Godavari Polymers Private Limited vs. The Commercial Tax Officer

GODAVARI POLYMERS PRIVATE LIMITED MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. C. 1ST FLOOR, PADI STREET, ONE TOWN VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. REP. BY ITS VENKATESHWAR RAO D.NO.12-12-43, ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PARK ROAD CIRCLE VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2.THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, DNO.5-59, BANDAR ROAD, R.K. SPRING VALLEY APARTMENTS, EDUPUGALLU, VIJAYAWADA ANDHRA PRADESH 521151 3.STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (REVENUE)(GST) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in passing the impugned assessment order dated 2-2-2022 for the assessment year 2018-19 under CGST /APGST Act 2017 and the consequential garnishee notice

GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the impugned order passed by the 1®‘ respondent, dated 02.02.2022, in Form GST DRC-07 garnishee notice, dated 15.05.2023, and notice issued under Section 78 of GST/SGST Act, 2017, dated 20.09.2023 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. SRS Commissioner ST & ors, in W.P.No.5238 of 2024, following the aforesaid 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 Goyal 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.

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 gf 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 mitigate against the validity of such proceedings. Another Division ^ 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC) ^ 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.)

In view of the aforesaid judgments, the view taken by the Court was that the absence of a DIN would vitiate the proceedings.

As the DIN is not attached to the impugned proceedings except the proceedings of 15.05.2023, it would be appropriate to set aside the order of assessment, dated 02.02.2022, as well as the summary of the order of assessment, dated 01.02.2022. Consequently, the garnishee order notice of 15.05.2023 would also have to be set aside as the said garnishee is based on the aforesaid impugned proceedings.

In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned proceedings and remanding the matter back to the assessing authority for proper adjudication after adequate notice and opportunity being given to the petitioner. It would be open to the petitioner to raise all grounds on facts and law. Needless to say, the period between the date of the impugned order and the date of receipt of this order shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation. There shall be no order as to costs. ^ 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.)

One CC to SRI. V SIDDHARTH REDDY Advocate [OPUC] SRI. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX Advocate [OPUC]

The 5. One CC to 6. THREE CD COPIES TAC