Khaleel Bhai Family Restaurant vs. The Assistant Commissioner

order as contemplated under Section 74(10) 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 is filed 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 24.08.2024, the Summary of the Order in Form OST DRC-07, dated 24.08.2024 and Summary of the Order, dated 24.08.2024 passed by the 1®* and 2"^^ Respondent, for the tax period 2021-22, under CGST/APGST Act, 2017, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, as otherwise, the Petitioner will be put to loss and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner ;SRI. VENKATRAM REDDY MANTUR Counsel for the Respondent No’s. 1 to 3:GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI PASALA PONNA RAO, DY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI SHANTl CHANDRA The Court made the following ORDER:

1 APHC010085442025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Juri iction) [3529] WEDNE AY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 5624/2025 Between: Khaleel Bhai Family Restaurant ...PETITIONER AND The Assistant Commissioner and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VENKATRAM REDDY MANTUR Counsel for the Respondent(S):

3 The question of the effect of non-inclusion of DIN number on 6. / 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, 7. issued by the C.B.I.C., had held that non-mention of a DIN number would 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 and absence of the signature of 8. the assessing officer, in the impugned assessment order would have to be set aside. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned assessment order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 24.08.2024, issued 9. ^ 2022 (63) C.S.T.L 286 (SC) ^ 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.) ^ 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.)

4 by the respondents 1 and 2, with liberty to the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct fresh assessment, after giving notice and by assigning a signature to the said 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 costs. order. The M PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR sectioA^fficer //// To, (ST), O/o The Additional Commissioner of Floor, Door 1 The Assistant Commissioner Regional GST Audit and Enforcement (ST), 2 Road, Govemerpet, VIJAYAWADA, NTR nd State Tax, No 27-6-106, Prakasam District. Andhra Pradesh - 520002 Assistant Commissioner (ST), Penamaluru, Vijayawada-lll

DATED:12/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.5624 of 2025 9 JUL 2025 as €: o DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS