Vinta Laboratories Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner State Tax & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the
Provisions considered
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 Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors1. 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 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…
- Para 77. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned proceedings, dated 27.12.2023, issued by the 1st respondent, with liberty to the 1st respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving notice to the petitioner and assigning a DIN number to the said order.…
Judgment
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
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, under FORM GST DRC – 07, dated 27.12.2023, passed by the 1st respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for the period July 2017 to March 2021. This assessment order of the 1st respondent has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. 2 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.P.No.21072 of 2024
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 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 mitigate against the validity of such proceedings. Another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs. The 1 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC) 2 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.) 3 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.P.No.21072 of 2024 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.
Operative part
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned proceedings, dated 27.12.2023, issued by the 1st respondent, with liberty to the 1st respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving notice to the petitioner and assigning a DIN number 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 _______________________ Dr. K MANMADHA RAO, J Date: 05.03.2025 MJA 3 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 303 (A.P.) 4 RRR, J & Dr. KMR, J W.P.No.21072 of 2024 151 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO:21072 of 2024 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
05.03.2025 MJA
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?
Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 05 Mar 2025. The bench was R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, K MANMADHA 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.