✦ Andhra Pradesh High Court · 30 Apr 2025

Steel v. The Assistant Commissioner, (ST) (FAC), Hindupur Circle

R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, Y LAKSHMANA RAO4 min read

Case at a glance

Outcome

Disposed of

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the

Key paragraphs

  • Para 44. 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 Goya! Vs. Union of India & Ors\ The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after noticing the…
  • Para 55. 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…
  • Para 77. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned proceedings, dated 27.02.2025, issued by the liberty to the 1®' respondent to conduct fresh the petitioner and assessment, after giving notice to assigning a DIN number to the said order. The period from…

Judgment

Sri Nandi Complex, D.L.Road, Hindupur-515 201. Anantapuram District, A.P. 2. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Hindupur, Anantapuram District, A.P. 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. its Principal Secretary, r. Revenue Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati. Guntur District Andhra Pradesh. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in ...RESPONDENTS the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue Writ of Mandarnus or any other appropriate Writ Order or Direction deciaring the action of the 1st Respondent in passing the Proceedings dated 27.02.2025 by way of Composite Order for both periods for 2018-19 and 2020-21 the tax Natural violation jurisdiction, unsigned partially by the proper officer, without DIN Principles as arbitrary, contrary to law and in Justice Rule of Law, without are not valid in the eye of law and consequently set aside both the Orders dated 27.02.2025 as null and void. v' 1 OF 2025 ,;5: i ij-i. 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 Proceedings dated 27.02.2025 passed for the tax periods 2018-19 and 2020-21, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, as otherwise, the Petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship. Operation suspend Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010191302025 050 0K^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3536] (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 10458/2025 Between; Mega Steel Industry ...PETITIONER AND The Assistant Commissioner and Others ...RESPONDENT{S) Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.

SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondent{S); 1 .GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

2.

The Court made the following order; (perHon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner was served with an assessment order, in Form GST DRC-07, dated 27.02.2025, passed by the 1®' respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”]. This assessment order of respondent has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. 2 RRR, J & Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.l0458of2025 m

2. This assessment order is challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said proceedings did not contain a DIN number.

3.

Learned Government Pleader Commercial Tax, instructions, submits DIN number on the impugned assessment order.

4.

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 Goya! 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.

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 Vs. The \ '2022(63)G.S.T.L. 286 (SC) ^ 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.) A 3 RRR, J & Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.10458 of 2025 Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam^ had also held that non-mention of a DIN number would require the order to be set aside.

6.

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.

Operative part

7.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned proceedings, dated 27.02.2025, issued by the liberty to the 1®' respondent to conduct fresh the petitioner and assessment, after giving notice to assigning a DIN number to the said order. The period from the date of the impugned assessment order, fill the date of receipt of this order shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation. There shall be no order as to respondent, with costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ^ 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.) To, f; k ^TFtUECOPY// Sd/- V DIWAKAR DEPUTY ^^TRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Assistant Commissioner, (ST) (FAC), Hindupur Circle, Sri Nandi Complex, D.L.Road, Hindupur-515 201. Anantapuram District, A.P. [RPAD]

2. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Hindupur, Anantapuram District, A.P.

3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati. Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

4. One CC to Sri Shaik Jeelani Basha Advocate [OPUC]

5. Two CCs to GP for Commercial Tax, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

6. Three CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATED:30/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.10458of2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151; Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 30 Apr 2025. The bench was R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, Y LAKSHMANA RAO.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Andhra Pradesh High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments