M/S. Gayatri Enteiprises vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Order or Direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the impugned unsigned Notice in FORM GST DRC 01A Dt. 20.08.2024 and may more consequential Summary of Show Cause Notice in FORM GST DRC - 01 Dt. 09.09.2024 which does not contain signature and DIN as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the provisions of GST Act 2017, void, non-est in the eyes of law, contrary to the Article 19(l)(g) of the Constitution of India, without juri iction and consequently set aside the consequential orders. same and all m 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 STAY the operation of impugned Unsigned Notice in FORM GST DRC 01A Dt. 20.08.2024 and consequential Summary of Show Cause Notice in FORM GST DRC - 01 Dt. 09.09.2024 which does not contain signature and DIN pending disposal of the present Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PEDDIBHOTLA VENKATA SAI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following order: RAJESH

APHC010049442025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Juri iction) [3488] WEDNE AY. THE FIFTH 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: 2650/2025 Between: M/s. Gayatri Enteiprises ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.PEDDIBHOTLA VENKATA SAI RAJESH Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following Order: (per Hon'bleSn justice R.RaghunandanRao) The petitioner was served with an assessment order, in Form GST DRC-01, dated 20.08.2024, passed by the 2"^^ respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for the period 2020-21 to 2023-24. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. This assessment order, in Form GST DRC-01, is challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said proceeding does not contain the signature of the assessing officer and also DIN number, on the impugned assessment order. 2. 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.

3 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 Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam^, had also held that non-mention of a DIN number would require the order to be set aside. 7. on 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 order would have to be set aside.

t HIGH COURT DATED;05/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.2650 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS