Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGST
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 is liable to be set aside. This decision was based on the observation that the order, upon perusal, did not contain a DIN and signature. The Court followed the precedent set by a coordinate bench of the same High Court in WP No. 27558 of 2024, which had ruled that orders lacking these essential elements are invalid. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed. The Court also noted that the 1st respondent is at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner, provided they issue a fresh notice, afford a personal hearing, and pass orders in accordance with the law. No costs were awarded, and pending applications were closed.
Facts
The petitioner, a registered GST dealer, received a show cause notice dated 30.12.2022 from the 1st respondent (Superintendent of CGST) for excess claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) in relation to the assessment year 2017-18, as discrepancies were found between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B returns. After a personal hearing, the 1st respondent passed an order dated 30.12.2023 confirming the proposed levy of tax, interest, and penalty. The petitioner admitted to the excess ITC claim and paid the differential tax and interest through Form DRC-03 on 10.12.2022 and 20.10.2024. The petitioner then filed a writ petition challenging the assessment order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned assessment order is liable to be set aside on the ground that it does not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN) and signature, as per the contention of the petitioner, relying on a coordinate bench's order in WP No. 27558 of 2024. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the assessment order is invalid because it lacks a DIN and signature. They relied on a previous order by a coordinate bench of the High Court which held similar orders to be liable for setting aside. Revenue's Arguments: The learned Government Pleader appearing for the department did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the absence of DIN and signature in the impugned order.
Sections Cited
Not specified
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1
APHC010495212024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
WRIT PETITION NO: 25643 of 2024 Bench Sr.No:-4 [3543] ********** CORAM : SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR DATE : 27th October 2026 Present : Advocate for Petitioner: M V J K KUMAR Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): NAGARAJU NAGURU, ....., GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX
2
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR
WP No.25643 OF 2024 ORDER:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice T.C.D. Sekhar)
The petitioner is a registered dealer under GST Act. In relation to the assessment year 2017-18 the 1st respondent after scrutiny of returns filed by the petitioner issued show cause notice dt.30.12.2022 to the petitioner as there was excess claim of ITC when compared to GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B returns. After affording personal hearing, the 1st respondent passed impugned order dt.30.12.2023 confirming the levy of tax, interest and penalty proposed in the show cause notice. Aggrieved by the same the present writ petition is filed.
It is the cas
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.