M/S Raghavendra Infra And Logistics vs. Assistant Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following Order: SRI. K.RAGHAVENDER REDDY ■■GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX
APHC010250772025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Juri iction) [3525] WEDNE AY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION No:12879 of 2025 Between: M/s Raghavendra Infra And Logistics, ...PETITIONER AND Assistant Commissioner St and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.K.RAGHAVENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri K. Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the Tax, appearing for the petitioner and learned G.P. for Commercial respondents. The petitioner was served with an assessment order, dated 24.06.2024, passed by the 1®‘ respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax 2. oW Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”] for the period 2021-2022 to 2022-20 This order has been challenged by the petitioner. This assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, is challenged by 2. 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 3. instructions, submits that there is no DIN number on the impugned assessment order. The question of the effect of non-inclusion of DIN number on 4. 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 & OrsL 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 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 ^ 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC) ^ 2024 (88) G.S.T.L 179 (A.P.)
IDeputy 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 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 24.06.2024 issued by the 1 liberty to the 1®* respondent to conduct fresh St respondent, with assessment, after giving notice and by assigning a DIN number to the said order. The period from the date of the impugned assessment orders, till the date of receipt of this Order shall excluded for the purposes of limitation. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand be closed. 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.) K. SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 0 //// SECTION OFFICER To,
The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Proddatur-I Circle, Kadapa Division, Andhra Pradesh.
The Joint Commissioner (ST), Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh.
The Additional Commissioner (ST) Legal, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh. The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (CT-II) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.
One CC to Sri. K.Raghavender Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]
Two CCs to GP for Commercial Tax ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
Three CD Copies vna
high court DATED:07/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.12879 of 2025 t 25 SEP mj c® -3r^
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.