M/S. Vemaiahgari Reddaiah vs. The Assistant Commissioner (State Tax)

Order or Direction, more l«,farticularly in the nature of MANDAMUS declaring that the impugned Ex-Parte Assessment Order passed by the First Respondent vide AO No: ZH370622OD59015, dated 29-06-2022, for the Tax Period July, 2017 to November, 2020, under the GST Acts, 2017, which does not contain the mandatory Electronically generated DIN, and which does not contain any Signature/Digital Signature and is an un-signed order, without serving show cause notice and without affording opportunity of hearing and imposing higher rate of tax on the Works executed by the Petitioner for TTD/Fourth Respondent herein, as contrary to law, violative of the principles of natural justice, arbitrary, capricious, invalid, deemed to never have been issued and illegal and consequently set aside the same and alternately it is prayed that in the event the higher rate of tax imposed is upheld to direct the TTD/Fourth Respondent herein to pay the differential tax, interest and penalty imposed in the impugned order. 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 grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the “Notice for attachment and sale of immovable/movable goods/shares under Section 79”, vide DIN3728022513480, dated 20-02-2025, issued by Fifth Respondent. 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 grant stay of all further proceedings, including recovery of tax, interest and penalty, pursuant to the impugned Ex-Parte Assessment Order passed by the First Respondent vide AO No: ZH370622OD59015 ,

■/ *'* f % dated 29-06-2022, for the Tax Period July, 2017 to November, 2020, under the GST Acts, 2017. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G.NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 5: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI PASALA PONNA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA r Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SC FOR TTD The Court made the following: ORDER

> APHC010135532025 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: 6934/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER M/s. Vemaiahgari Reddaiah AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The Assistant Commissioner State Tax and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.G NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following Order: (perHon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Raoj The petitioner was served with the assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, dated 29.06.2022, passed by the respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for the period July, 2017 to November, 2020. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition. This assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, is challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said proceedings does not contain the signature of the assessing officer and also DIN number, on the impugned order. 2. y-r 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. 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 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.

tMUMWiinrf] 3 0 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 wouldi Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam^, had also held that non-mention of a DIN number would require the order to be set aside.

% HIGH COURT g' DATED; 19/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.6934 of 2025 ^2 3JUL 2025 j ♦stlLnwitS«ctio «o DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS