Ms. Khaleel Bhai Family Restaurant vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
of order in GST DRC-07 dated 22.08.2024, the order dated 23.08.2024 Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 23.08.2024 2nd Respondent and levying tax under Section 74(10) of the CGST/APGST and passed by the Act,
0 2017 and interest and penalty for the tax period 2022-23 (April-2022 to March - 2023) without authorisation, without DIN in the order, the Summary of the order ' fn J^orm^GST DRC-07 and the Summary of the Order and without Signature of the Isi'and 2nd Respondents in the Order, Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 23.08.2024, as arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the CGST/APGST Act. 2017, without establishing any fraud/misstatemen t and of order as regularities of the Petitioners the orders and summary 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 petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Order, dated 23.08.2024, the Summary of the Order m Form GST DRC-07, dated 23.08.2024 and Summary of the Order, dated 22.08.2024 passed by the 1®' and 2"'^ Respondent, for the tax period 2022-23, under CGST/APGST Act, 2017, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, as otherwise, the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VENKATRAM REDDY MANTUR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX Counsel for the Respondents: SRI POSALA PONNA RAO DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following order:
APHC010088272025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Juri iction) [3508] / TUE AY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 4886/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER Ms. Khaleel Bhai Family Restaurant AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The Assistant Commissioner St and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VENKATRAM REDDY MANTUR Counsel for the Respondent(S):
The Court made the following order: (perHon’ble Sh Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner was served with an assessment order, under FORM GST DRC - 07, dated 23.08.2024, passed by the 2""* respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for the period April 2022 respondent has been nd to March 2023. This assessment order of the 2 challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. A 2 RRR, J & MRK, W.P.No.4886of202^
This assessment order is chailenged by the petitioner, grounds, including the ground that the number. on various said proceedings did not contain a DIN
Learned Government instructions, submits that there i assessment order. Pleader for Commercial Tax, on IS no DIN number on the impugned
The question of the effect of proceedings, under the G.S.T. Act, non-inclusion of DIN number on came to be considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Goya! Vs. Union of India & Ors\ noticing the provisions of the Act and the Taxes and Customs (herein an order, which does not contain a DIN The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect referred to as “C.B.I.C/l had held that number would be /?or?-esf and invalid.
A Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa ^ on 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 proceedings. Another Division Bench of case of Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors mitigate against the validity of such this Court in the \/s. The G.S.T.L. 286 (SC) 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.)
\ 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 in the order, which was uploaded in the portal, requires the impugned order to be set aside.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned proceedings, dated 23.08.2024, issued by the 2"^ respondent, with liberty to the 2'"'^ respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving notice to the petitioner and assigning a DIN 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 7. as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. .PUVBHASKAR^O / assistant REGISTRAK SECTION OFFICER ;s7fXr303(A.P) 2024 (88) G //// of Additional Commissioner 2"^^ Floor, Door NTR District. To ^ The Assistant Contnti||tohe^^,|,sn (ST) ^“dh'a Pradesh-520002 Andhra Pradesh. iri Circle, Mangalagih (ST), Mangalagin
/ The Principal Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Union of India, North Block, New Delhi - 110 001. The Chairman, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi - 100 001. One CC to Sri Venkatram Reddy Mantur, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Pasala Ponna Rao, Deputy Solicitor General of India [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Commercial Tax, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Two CD Copies v/W-
high court DATED;25/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.4886 of 2025 .=5 1 ^ MAY 2D25 ^ . Current Section . 53; 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.