M/S. Khaleel Bhai Family Restaurant vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

order in GST DRC-07 dated 24-08-2024 he order dated 24.08.2024 and Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 24.08.2024, passed by the 2nd Respondent and levying tax under Section 74(10) of the CGST/APGST Act, 2017 and interest and penalty for the tax period 2023-24 (April-2023 to March -2024) without authorization, 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®* and 2"'‘ Respondents in the Order, Summary of the Order in Foim GST DRC- 07, dated 24.08.2024, as arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the CGST/APGST Act. 2017, without establishing any fraud/misstatement and irregularities of the Petitioners the orders and summary of 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 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ 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 GST DRC-07, dated 24.08.2024 and Summary of the Order, dated 24.08.2024 passed by the 1st and 2nd Respondent, for the tax period 2023-24, under CGST/APGST Act, 2017, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, as otherwise, the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship.

r / r f f ^ / counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VENKATRAM REDDY MANTUR I counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX counsel for the Respondents No.4,5: SRI P PONNA RAO (SC FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT) The Court made the following: ORDER /

APHC010085482025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Juri iction) [3525] WEDNE AY, THE FIFTH 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: 5516/2025 Between: M/s. Khaleel Bhai Family Restaurant ...PETITIONER AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The Assistant Commissioner St and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VENKATRAM REDDY MANTUR Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following Order: fperHonWe SrfJusf/ceR.RaghunandanRao^ The petitioner was served with the assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, dated 24.08.2024, passed by the 1®* respondent and the summary order, dated 24.08.2024, passed by the 2"^ respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for the period 2023-24. These orders have been challenged by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition.

2 ■ 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. 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. 5. 19.03.2024, The question of the effect of non-inclusion of DIN number 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. 6. on '2022 (63)G.S.T.L. 286 (SC)

3 A Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Cluster ^ on 7. Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa 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 Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam^, had also held that mention of a DIN number would require the order to be set aside. this non- 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 the assessing officer, in the impugned assessment orders would have to be set aside.

\ \ - \ \ \ \ A \ \ \ I \ \ \ HIGH COURT DATED:05/03/2025 \ ORDER WP.No.5516 of 2025 16 JUN 2025 I‘S3: ml, V*. — ^ ’•■•Ml- DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS