M/S.Habrik Infra vs. The Assistant Commissioner(St) - Andhra Pradesh High Court, 21 January 2025

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

1 RRR, J & MRK, J W.P.No.496/2024 APHC010005472024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3508] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 496/2024 Between: M/s.habrik Infra ...PETITIONER AND The Assistant Commissionerst and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

The petitioner was served with an assessment order in Form GST DRC- 07, dated 06.10.2023, passed by the 1st respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for the period 2021 to 2022. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

This assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, is challenged by 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. SRK Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner, in W.P.No.29397 of 2023, decided on 10.11.2023, had set aside the impugned assessment order.

Another Division Bench of this Court by its Judgment, dated 19.03.2024, in the case of M/s. SRS Traders Vs The. Assistant 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.

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 Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors1. 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.

A Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa 2, 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 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 1 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC) 2 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.) 3 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.)

the assessing officer, in the impugned assessment order would have to be set aside.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned assessment order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 06.10.2023, issued by the 1st respondent, with liberty to the 1st respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving notice and by assigning a signature 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.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J

Js.

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

WRIT PETITION No.496 of 2024 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao)

22nd January, 2025 Js.