BharatTaxGST

M/S. Technosoft Solutions vs. The Deputy Commissioner

Original PDF →
WP/5291/2025HC Andhra PradeshGSTCNR APHC01006991202504 March 2025Bench: R RAGHUNANDAN RAO,K MANMADHA RAO8 pages
For Respondent: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE fu I PRESENT V 'V* HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND HON’BLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 5291 OF 2025 a Between: M/s. Technosoft Solutions, Rep.by its proprietor Mohammad 35/1, Srinagar Main Road, Rama Talkis Pradesh - 530 007 Akbal, #48-14- road Visakhapatnam. Andhra ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle Commissioner(ST), Visakhapatnam-1 Division, Pradesh. 2. Assistant Commissioner (ST), Siripuram Circle Division Visakahpatnam Dist. 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principle Secretary, Revenue (CT) Department, A.P.Secretariat, Guntur District. 4. The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance Block, New Delhi - 110 001. 5. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, 0pp. Hotel Saketh Residency, Dabaga Gardens, Vishakhapatnam - 530 02 VSP-1 State of Andhra o/o Join Visakhapatnam -1 Velagapudi, Amaravati North ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India i that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith. Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus other writ is filed praying i. the High or any 4 r direction or order quashing the proceedings of the 1st Respondent in the - Assessment Order issued in Form GST DRC -07 under Section 73(9) and Rule 142(5) of the GST Act, 2017, dated 10-04-2024 bearing Ref. No / Notice NO.ZD3704240088682 dated 10-04-2024, for the Tax Period 2018- 2019 without any valid Document Identification Number (DIN) as arbitrary. Illegal, bad in law, void-ab- initio, barred by time, violative of the principles of natural justice ii. Consequently, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of direction, or order directing the 2nd mandamus or any other writ Respondent to sanction the refund of tax demand of Rs. 32,05,720/- recovered by debiting the Petitioners Bank Account by issuing Notice third party vide DRC -13 dated 10-01-2025 consequent to the impugned order passed. And iii. Consequently, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction, or order to set aside the actions of the 2nd Respondent in attaching the Bank Account of the petitioner vide DRC -13 dated 10-01-2025 and direct the 5th Respondent to lift the attachment of the Petitioners Bank Account. to lA NO: 1 OF 202^ 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 stay all further proceedings, including any recovery, pursuant to the notice issued under Section 73 of the GST Act , 2017 dated 18-01-2024 bearing Ref No. and Notice No.;ZD3701240093300 dated 18-01-2024, for the Tax period 2018-19 and order passed undef section 73(9) dated 10-04-2024 bearing Ref.No.ZD3704240088682 dated 10-04-2024, for the Tax period 2018-19. Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI J N VENKATA SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI PASALA PONNA RAO (DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA) 4 Counsel for the Respondent No.5:

The Court made the following: ORDER I

APHC010069912025 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: 5291/2025 Between: M/s. Technosoft Solutions ...PETITIONER AND The Deputy Commissioner and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: ...RESPONDENT(S) 1.J.N VENKATA SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.

The Court made the following Order: (perHon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner was served with an assessment order, dated 10.04.2024, passed by the 1®* respondent, under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short the GST Act”], for the tax period 2018 - 2019. This assessment order of the 1®Vespondent has been challenged by the petitioner in this Writ Petition. \

2 RRRJ & Dr.KMR,J^ W.P.No.5291 of 2025 ' This assessment order, is challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said proceedings did not contain a DIN number.

2.3.

Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax on instructions, submits that there is no DIN number on the impugned assessment order.

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 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 an6 invalid.

5.

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 would mitigate against the validity of such proceedings. Another Division Bench of this Court in the case of $ai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs. The ^ 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC) "2024(88)G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.)

3 RRR,J & Dr.KMRJ W.P.N0.5291 of 2025 Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam^, had also held that non-mention of a DIN number would require the order to be set aside.

6.

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.

7.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned proceedings, dated 10.04.2024 & 10.01.2025, issued by the respondents 1 & 2 respectively, with a liberty to the 1®‘ respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving a notice to the petitioner and assigning 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 costs. a DIN As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ^ 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.) U.SRI DEVI ISTRAR //// ASSISTANT SECTION OFFICER To,

1.

The Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle VSP -1 , o/o Join Commissioner(ST), Visakhapatnam -1 Division, State of Andhra Pradesh. Assistant Commissioner (ST), Siripuram Circle, Visakhapatnam -1 Division Visakahpatnam Dist.

3.

The Principal Secretary, Revenue (CT) Department, A.P.Secretariat Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. ^ DefhPTIo^OOl’ Finance, North Block, New

7

5.

The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Opp Hotel Saketh Residency Dabaga Gardens, Vishakhapatnam - 530 02

6.

One CC to Sri J N Venkata Suresh Kumar Advocate [OPUC]

7.

One CC to Sri Pasala Ponna Rao, Deputy Solicitor General of India, High Court of A.P. [OPUC]

8.

Two CCs to GP for Commercial Tax, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

9.

Three CD Copies TF

HIGH COURT DATED:05/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.5291 of 2025 5 11 JUL 2025 ^ Current Secnon ^ Co DISPOSING OF THE W.P., 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.