Sri Sainath Constructions vs. The Joint Commissioner(State Tax)
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order Rv.No.GST/REV-10/2024dated
2024 passed by the Respondent No.1 as being void, arbitrary, illegal, without DIN, without juri iction, and violative of the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 265 of the Constitution of India and to consequently set aside the same. 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 stay the recovery of tax demanded to an extent of Rs.54,89,447/- (APGST), Rs.54,89,447/- (COST) along with interest thereon under Section 50 (1) of APGST Act 2017/CGST Act 2017, Penalty under Section 122 (1), pursuant to the impugned Revision Order No.GST/REV-10/2024 dated 11.11.2024 passed by the Respondent No.
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI KALEPU YASHWANTH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : SRI P. PONNA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following; ORDER
APHC010060112025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Juri iction) [3488] WEDNE AY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 3650/2025 Between: Sri Sainath Constructions ...PETITIONER AND The Joint Commissionerstate Tax and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KALEPU YASHWANTH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX
The Court made the following Order: (perHon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner was served with a Revision Order, bearing Rv.No.GST/REV-10/2024, dated 11.11.2024, passed by the 1"‘ respondent, under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for the period 2017-2018 & 2018-2019. The said order of the 1 respondent has been challenged by the petitioner in this Writ Petition.
2 -"SI RRRJ & HN,J W.P.No.3650of2025
This order, is challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said proceedings did not contain a DIN number.
Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, instructions, submits that there is no DIN number on the impugned order. on 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 Goyal 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. 4. on 5. 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 non-mention of a DIN number would mitigate against the validity of such proceedings. Another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Us. The Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam^, had also held that non-mention of a DIN number would require the order to be set aside. , on ' 2022 (63) G-S.T.L. 286 (SC) " 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.) ^ 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.)
W.P.No.3650 of 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 portal, requires the impugned order to be set aside. In view of the 6. in the Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the .11.2024, issued by the 1"‘ respondent, with respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving a DIN number to the said order. The 7. impugned proceedings, dated 11 a liberty to the 1 notice to the petitioner and assigning a period from the date of the impugned 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. , shall stand sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any As a P.U.V.BHASKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTPvAR closed. //// N OFFICER SE To,
The Joint Commissioner(State Tax), Nellore Division, Nellore Andhra Pradesh.
The Assistant Commissioner (State Tax), Addanki Circle, Addanki Andhra Pradesh.
The Commissioner of State Taxes, No.5-59, Bandar Road, Spring Valley Apartments, Rajiv Bhargav Colony Road R.K. Spring Valley Apartments, Village, Edupugallu Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh - 521151. 4. The Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes (FAC), State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. Andhra Pradesh.
The Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi.
One CC to Sri Kalepu Yashwanth, Advocate [OPUC]
One CC to Sri P. Ponna Rao, Deputy Solicitor General of India [OPUC] 8 Two CCs to GP for Commercial Tax, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. (OUT)
Three C.D. Copies. Cnr
HIGH COURT DATED:12/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.3650 of 2025 X 1 1 MAR 20?5 I Curreni aeciion ^ 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.