Reddy Enterprises vs. The Assistant Commissioner
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
in passing the summary of order in GST DRC-07 dated 07.12.2024, the order dated 07.12.2024 and Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 07.12.2024, passed by the 1 St
Respondent and imposed interest under Section 73 of the CGST/APGST Act, 2017 and interest for the tax period 2022-23 (April, 2022 to December, 2022) without authorisation, without DIN in the order, the Summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 and the Summary of the Order and without Signature of the 1®^ Respondent in the Order, Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 07.12.2024 as arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the CGST/APGST Act. 2017, without establishing any fraud/misstatemen t and irregularities of the Petitioners the orders and summary of order as contemplated under Section 73 of the CGST/APGST Act 2017, which is not valid in the eye of law and as illegal, arbitrary, without juri iction, bias, frivolous, and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as null and void. lA NO: 1 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 suspend the operation of the Order, dated 07.12.2024, the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 07.12.2024 and Summary of the Order, dated 31.08.202 passed by the 1 CGST/APGST Act, 2017. St Respondents, for the tax period 2022-23, under Counsel for the PetitlonenSRI. VENKATRAM REDDY MANTUR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following order:
APHC010166012025 / IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Juri iction) HES [3525] WEDNE AY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 8601/2025 Between: Reddy Enterprises ...PETITIONER AND The Assistant Commissioner and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VENKATRAM REDDY MANTUR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX
The Court made the following order: (perHon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner was served with an assessment order, dated 07.12.2024, passed by the respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for the period 2022-23. This assessment order of the 1 St respondent has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. \ This assessment order is challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said proceedings did not contain a DIN 2. number.
Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, instructions, submits that there is no DIN number on the impugned assessment order. on 4. 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 Us. 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 Us. 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 Us. The ^ 2022 (1^) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC) "2024(88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.)
r Deputy 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 07.12.2024, issued 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 assessment order, till the date of receipt of this order shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation. There shall be no order as to 7. costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. A YENU GOPALA RAO assistant registrar icER //// SECTIO To, jhe Assistant Commissioner, Gandhinagar Circle, Vijayawada-ll. NTR Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh.
The Principal Secretary, Taxes Department, _ District.(by SPECIAL MESSENGER) ^ 2024(88)G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.) The State of Andhra Pradesh, Commercial Guntur Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati
r
The Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi- 110 001. The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, Rep. by its Chairman, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi - 100 001.(Nos. 1, 3, 4 by RPAD) One CC to SRI. VENKATRAM REDDY MANTUR Advocate [OPUC] Two CCS to GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Three CD Copies. 4. 5. 6. 7. psk
HIGH COURT DATED:02/04/2025 ORDER t 13 JUN im WP.No.8601 of 2025 om Sf*l, DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITH NO 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.