Mis. Khaleel Bhai Family Restaurant vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
order in GST DRC-07 dated 22.08.2024, the order dated 23.08.2024 and Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 23.08.2024, 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 2018-19 (April-2018 to March-2019) 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 1st and 2nd Respondents in the Order, Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 23.08.2024 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. , as 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 23.08.2024, the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 23.08.2024 and Summary of the Order, dated 22.08.2024 passed by the 1st and 2nd Respondent, for the tax period 2018-19, under CGST/.APGST Act, 2017, pending disposal of the // above Writ Petition, as other-wise, the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VENKATRAM REDDY MANTUR Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX Counsel for the Respondents No.4,5: SRI P PONNA RAO(CENTRAL GOVERNMNT) The Court made the following: ORDER
APHC010090842025 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: 5544/2025 Between: Mis. 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: (per Hon’bleSn justice R.RaghunandanRaoj The petitioner was served with the summary order, in Form GST DRC-07, dated 22.08.2024, passed by the 1®' respondent and the summary order, in Form GST DRC-07, dated 23.08.2024, passed by the 2 pondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for the period 2018-19 ( April-2018 to March-2019). These orders have been challenged by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition. These summary orders, in Form GST DRC-07, are challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said nd res 2. •X Sections-160 & 169 of the Central Goods and Service not rectify such a defect. Following this Judgment, another Division Bench of this Court, in the case of M/s. M/s. SRS Traders 19.03.2024, Commissioner ST & Vs The. Assistant in W.P.No.5238 of 2024, following the aforesaid ors two Judgments, had held that the absence of the signature of the assessing assessment order invalid officer, on the assessment order, would render the and set aside the said order.
The question of the effect of non-inclusion of DIN number proceedings, under the G.S.T. Act, on came to be considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Goya! Vs. Union of India The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after noticing the circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Ors\ provisions of the Act and the and Customs (herein referred to as “C. 8. /. C.had held that an order, which does not contain number would be non-est and invalid. a DIN ' 2022 (63) G.S.T.L 286 (SC)
3 s
A Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Cluster 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 , on non-mention of a DIN number would Deputy Commissioner, Speciai Circie, 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 the assessing officer, in the impugned summary orders would have to be set aside.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the summary order, in Form GST DRC-07, dated 22.08.2024, passed by the 1 respondent and the summary order, in Form GST DRC-07, dated 23.08.2024, passed by the 2"^^ respondent, with liberty to the respondents 1 & 2 to conduct fresh assessment, after giving notice and by assigning a signature to the said orders. The period from the date of the impugned summary orders, till the date of receipt of this Order shall be excluded for the St purposes of limitation. There shall be no order as to costs. ^2024(88) G.S.T.L 179 (A.P.) / ^2024(88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.) G HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT registrar //// SECTION OFFICER To,
The Assistant Commissioner (ST), O/o The Additional Commissioner of State Tax, Regional GST Audit and Enforcement (ST), 2nd Floor, Door No 27-6-106, Prakasam Road, Governorpet, Vijayawada, NTR District. Andhra Pradesh - 520002
The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Mangalgiri Circle, Mangalgiri, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, (Commercial Taxes Department), A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. The Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110001. The Chairman, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi 100 001. ^ V"; ,
One CC to SRI. VENKATRAM REDDY MANTUR, Advocate [OPUC]
Two CCs to GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] ^
One CC to SRI POSALA PONNA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL [OPUC]
Three C.D.Copies 3. 4. 5. nm
HIGH COURT DATED:05/03/2025 of andh^ X 0^ J ^ , Curreni beciion JoesRATC^ ORDER WP.No.5544 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.