HEMA GAS COMPANY, HAVING ITS REGD. PREMISES AT D. NO. 1 v. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, (ST) INDRAKEELADRI CIRCLE

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 pleased to STAY all further proceedings pursuant to impugned Assessment Orderpassed vide FORM GST DRC-07 Dt. 23.04.2024 passed by the 1st Respondent for tax periods 2018-19 U/s. 73 of the APGST Act, 2017without containing any DIN or Signature, and without issuance of Pre-Show Cause Notice in DRC — 01A apart from being contrary to Circular No. 237/31/2024- GST Dt. 15.10.2024pending disposal of the Writ Petition or to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. PEDDIBHOTLA VENKATA SAI RAJESH Counsel for the Respondent(S):

GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 3 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.5050 of 2026 The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri P. V. Sai Rajesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, appearing respondents.

The petitioner was served with an assessment order, dated

23.04.2024, passed by the 1st respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for the period 2018-19. This assessment order of the 1st respondent has been challenged by the petitioner in this Writ Petition.

This assessment 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, on instructions, submits that there is no DIN number on the impugned assessment 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 1 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC) 4 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.P.No.5050 of 2026 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 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 mitigate against the validity of such proceedings. Another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam3, 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.