BharatTaxGST

Kishor Kumar Reddy vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax

Original PDF →
WP/7858/2025HC Andhra PradeshGSTCNR APHC01014953202529 April 2025Bench: R RAGHUNANDAN RAO,Y. LAKSHMANA RAO9 pages
For Petitioner: SRI PASUPULETI VENKATA PRASADFor Respondent: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 7858 OF 202^ Between: Kishor Kumar Reddy, S/o Mr. Vehu Gopal Reddy, Aged about 62 years Having office at H.No. 18-192/2, Flat No. 2, S.V. Towers, Yasodha Nagar Tirupati - 517507 ^ ’ ...Petitioner ■ ■ -f AND 1. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, O/o AC (ST) Gudur 524101^’ Buildings, Venkatgiri Road, Gudur - 2- Sub-Registrar MRO Office Compound, Near Railway Gate, Sullur Peta, Tirupati District-524121, ic, ounui 3. The Chief Commissioner of State Tax, D. No. 5-59, RK Spring Valley Apartments, ^^ndar Road, Edupugallu Village, Kankipadu Mandal Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh-521144 Rpiannl Represented by its Principal Secretary, 522 5oT Department (Commercial Tax), A P Secretariat, Velagapud.i - ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of .the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue may a writ, order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring a) That the impugned order dated 10-10-2023 read with the summary in Form DRC-07 vide Reference No. ZD371023006306X dated 10-10- 2023 by the Respondent No. 1 under the provisions of CGST/APGST Act, 2017 being void, arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, without authority of law apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution as of India, and to consequently sot aside the same and/or pass such further or other brder(s) as this Hon'ble COurt may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. b) That, consequently, the notice Form GST DRC-16 bearing 3718032596031 dated 18-03-2025 issued by the Respondent No. the provisions of CGST/APGST Act, 2017 directing the Respondent No. 2 to attach the immovable property; of Ihe Petitioner, is void, arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, without authority of law apart from being violative Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 ■ of the Constitution consequently set aside the same lA NO: 1 OF 2025 DIN 1 under of of India, and to 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 stay operation of impugned order dated 10-10-2023 read with the summary in Form DRC-07 vide Reference No. ZD371023006306X dated 10-10-2023 passed by Respondent No. 1 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 to stay the operation of the Order in Form GST DRC-16 bearing DIN 3718032596031 dated 18-03-2025 passed by Respondent No. 1 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 file the additional affidavit along with material papers and the Hon’ble Court may be peruse as a part and parcel of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PASUPULETI VENKATA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents No.1, 3, 4: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

The Court made the following: Order APHC010149532025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Juri iction) [3536] WEDNE AY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 7858/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER Kishor Kumar Reddy AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The Deputy Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.PASUPULETI VENKATA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.

GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri P. Venkata Prasad, learned counsel appearing for and learned G.P. for Commercial Tax appearing for the the petitioner, respondents. The petitioner was served with an assessment order, dated 10.10^023, passed by the 1®* respondent, under the Goods and Servic^Tax 2. 2 RRR,J & Dr. YLR I 'A'PNo7858/2025 2017 [for short The petitioner 18.03.2025, by the 'mmovab/e property of the challenged by the the GST Act"] for (he served with period April, 2019 to March 2020. was also e notice i "1 Form GST DRC-16, dated 1 respondent, directing the 2« respondent to attach pursuance of these the property of the petitioner, in petitioner has been orders, the orders have been attached. These petitioner.

3.

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

4.

Government for Commercial instructions, does not contain DIN Tax, assessing officer assessment order. submits that there i on 's no signature of the and number. The effect of the on the impugned absence of the si considered by this Court, i VP. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), i 14.02.2023. A Division Bench Of this Court assessment order Sections-160 & not rectify such tois Court. signature, order was earlier on an 'n the case of A.V. assessment Bhanoji Row decided signature, on the ’ '^■P No.2830 of 2023 - dad held that the si on cannot be 169 of the Central a defect. dispensed with and that the Goods and Service Following this Judgment, provisions of Tax Act, 2017, would another Division Bench Enterprises of in the case of M/s. M/s. Commissioner ST & ors, in W.P.No.5238 of 2024, following the aforesaid 6. 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 2 Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa 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.)

RRR,J & Dr. YLR.j W.P. No. 7858/2025 Deputy Commissio non-mention of a DIN ner, Speciat Circle, Visakhapatnam^, had require the order to be set also held that number would 9- In view of the aforesaid i aside. judgments and the cicircular issued by the absence of the signature of C B.I.C., the non-mention of the assessing officer, in the impugned aside. a din number and assessment order would have to be set

10.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the -07, dated 10.10.2023 impugned assessment the notice i order in Form GST DRC in Form GST DRC-16 and dated 18.03.2025, iissued by the respondent, with liberty to the after giving notice 1 respondent to conduct fresh assessment. and by assigning Din number and sisignature to the said order. The period from the date of the i Order shall be impugned assessment order, till the date of receipt of this Needless to excluded for the purposes of limitation, as the say, the order of attachment order of assessment has been Will stand abated underlying no order as to costs. set aside. There shall be sequel, pending miscellaneous As a applications, if any, shall stand closed. ^^2024(88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.) G. HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //// SECTION OFFICER To, CilclfT Commissioner of State Tax. O/o AC (ST), Gudur 524101°' ^ Buildings, Venkatgiri Road, Gudur - fera,"TtpalSc“'l4?Jr D. No. 5-59, RK Spring Valley Vi^yaSliAndh?! Pradesh-1Ti4®4''“

4.

The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department (Commercial Tax), A P Secretariat, Velagapudi - 522 503

5.

One CC to SRI PASUPULETI VENKATA PRASAD Advocate [OPUC] J"°desh [ourf COMMERCIAL TAX, High Court of Artdhra

7.

Three CD Copies gsg

T HIGH COURT DATED: 30/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.7858 of 2025 DISPOSING THE WP 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.