Yantra Epcom Solutions PVT LTD vs. The Chief Commissioner Of State Taxes
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
order in A. O. ZH371120OD84298 Dt. 27.10.2020 for the Assessment Period September, 2017 to June, 2018 and A.O.NO. ZH370121OD41932 Dt. 31.12.2020 for the tax period September - 2018 to February 2020 and consequential recovery proceedings in FORM GST DRC - 13 Dt. 27.07.2021 pending disposal of Writ Petition. Counsel for the PetitionerSRI PEDDIBHOTLA VENKATA SAI RAJESH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010140ei2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Juri iction) [3525] WEDNE AY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 7169/2025 Between: Yantra Epcom Solutions Pvt Ltd ...PETITIONER AND The Chief Commissioner Of State Taxes and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:
PEDDIBHOTLA VENKATA SAI RAJESH Counsel for the Respondent(S):
GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX
The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri Peddibhotia Venkata Sai Rajesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, appearing for the respondents. The petitioner was served with an assessment, order in A. O.
ZH371120OD84298 dated 27.10.2020 for the assessment period September, 2017 to June, 2018 and A.O.No. ZH370121OD41932 dated 31.12.2020 for the tax period September 2018 to February 2020 and consequential recovery nd proceedings in FORM GST DRC-13, dated 27.07.2021, passed by the 2 respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”]. These orders have been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
This assessment order, in Form GST DRC-13, 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. SRK E-nterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner, in W.P.No.29397 of 2023, decided on 10.11.2023, had set aside the impugned assessment order.
Another Division Bench of this Court by its Judgment, dated 19.03.2024, in the case of M/s. 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 Goya! 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 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 ^ 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC) ^ 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.)
Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapetnam=, 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 and absence of the the assessing officer, in the impugned assessment order would have aside. 9. signature of to be set
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned assessment orders in A. O. ZH371120OD84298 dated 27.10.2020 for the assessment period September 2017 to June, 2018 and A.O.No. tax period September 2018 to ZH370121OD41932 dated 31.12.2020 for the February 2020 and consequential 13, dated 27.07.2021 recovery proceedings in FORM GST DRC- passed by the 2"^ respondent, with liberty to the 2 nd respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving notice and by assigning signature to the said order. The period from assessment order, till the date of receipt of this Order shall be the date of the impugned excluded for the purposes of limitation. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. J SAROJA ASSISTANT R //// SECTIO To,
The Chief Commissioner of State Taxes, D. No. 12-468-4, NH-16 Service Road, Kunchanapally, Guntur District Andhra Pradesh - 522501
The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Gajuwaka Circle, Visakhapatnam
The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (CT) Dept., Velagapudi, Amaravati
OneCCto SRI. PEDDIBHOTLA VENKATA SAI RAJESH, Advocate [OPUC]
Two CCs to GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati[OUT]
Three C.D.Copies nm I i' j.
4 t HIGH COURT DATED;19/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.7169 of 2025 DISPOSING OF 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.