Metro Trading Corporation vs. The Assistant Commissioner

[ 3535 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY^ THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION NO: 10182 OF 2025 Between: M/s. Metro Trading Corporation, 1"' Floor, Plot No.502, Mangalagiri Road Autonagar, Phase 1 and 2, Guntur. State of Andhra Pradesh. Rep. by its Proprietor Mr. Shaik Ayaz ...Petitioner AND 1. The Assistant Commissioner, (ST) Kothapet Circle, Guntur-ll Division, Guntur. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (CT) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Amaravati. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus Writ or Order or Direction declaring the action of the 1 or any other appropriate Respondent in passing the Proceedings in Form GST DRC-07, dated 31.12.2024, by passing a Composite Order, for the tax period 2021-22 and 2022-23, without passing a separate Order as per Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, without generating DIN in the Notices and Orders and without signature in the Notices as per the provisions of the CGST/SGST Act 2017, as null and void and consequently set aside / quash the Proceedings in r Form GST DRC-07, dated 31.12.2024 passed by the 1®‘ Respondent null and void. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all proceedings, pursuance to the Proceedings in Form GST DRC-07, dated 31.12.2024 passed by the 1®* Respondent for the tax period 2021-22 and 2022-23 under the CGST/SGST Acts 2017. Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following: as APHC010199942025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3535] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION NO: 10182/2025 Between: Metro Trading Corporation ...PETITIONER AND The Assistant Commissioner and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 2. The Court made the following Order: (per Hon'UeSn justice R.RaghunandanRaoJ The petitioner was served with the order of assessment, in Form GST DRC-07, dated 31.12.2024, passed by the 1®‘ respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for the period from 2021-22 and 2022-23. This assessment order of the 1®* respondent has been challenged by the petitioner in this Writ Petition. This assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, dated 31.12.2024, challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that ^h'^'ssid proceedings did not contain a DIN number. 2. IS 2 Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, submits that there is no DIN number on the impugned order. 3. 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 Goya! \/s. 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. 4. 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 mitigate against the validity of such proceedings. Another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam^, had also held that non-mention of a DIN number would require the order to be set aside. 5. 6. In view of the aforesaid judgments and the circular issued by the C.B.I.C., the non-mention of a DIN number in these orders, which was uploaded in the portal, requires the impugned order to be set aside. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the order of assessment, in Form GST DRC-07, dated 31.12.2024, passed by the 1®* respondent, with liberty to the 1®* respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving notice to the petitioner and assigning a DIN number to the said order. The period from the date of the impugned order, till the date of receipt 7. " 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC) ^ 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.) ^ 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.) 3 • of this Order shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation. There shall be order as to costs. no As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- A VIJAYA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// 5. SECTION OFFICER To, The Assistant Commissioner, (ST) Kothapet Circle, Guntur-ll Division, Guntur. The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (CT) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Amaravati.(1 to 2 by RPAD) One CC to SRI SHAIK JEELANI BASRA Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR COMMECIAL TAX, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] Three CD Copies ^ u,. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. KSR (gsg) ' / HIGH COURT DATED: 23/04/2025