M/S. RADHIKA METALS AND MINERALS,, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 33047/2025 Between:

1. M/S. RADHIKA METALS AND MINERALS,, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE APGST ACT, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT FLAT NO. 207, DFN COLONY, DUVVAM VILLAGE, GARIVIDI MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 535101, GSTIN 37AABFR2796R1ZB, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. MANVENDRA MOR ...PETITIONER AND

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (COMMERCIAL TAXES) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ST, SPECIAL CIRCLE, VIZIANAGARAM DIVISION, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pleased to issue a Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring (i) The Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 28.08.2024 bearing Reference No. ZD370524029140R Impugned Order-in-Original dated 31.08.2024 bearing Ref. No.ZD3708240283846, passed by the 2nd Respondent in Form GST DRC- 2 07 the consequential Form GST DRC-07 bearing ZD3708240283846 the non-entertainment of the appeal filed by the Petitioner in Form GST APL- 01 dated 07.02.2025 which has left the Petitioner without any effective (J) statutory remedy as time-barred under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act, 2017 and APGST Act, 2017 (insofar as the SCN and Impugned Order are concerned), arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 and APGST Act, 2017, applicable Rules and Circulars made thereunder, and unconstitutional as being in violation of Articles 14, 19(1 )(g), and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 to suspend the operation of the Impugned Order- in-Original dated 31.08.2024 bearing Ref. No. ZD3708240283846 and consequential Form GST DRC-07 demand bearing ZD3708240283846, and to direct the Respondents not to take any coercive steps against the Petitioner pursuant to these orders and Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. JYOTHI RATNA ANUMOLU Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 3 The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner herein, which is registered under the GST Act, was subjected to order of assessment, dated 31.08.2024. An appeal filed against the said order came to be rejected, on the ground that, the appeal has been filed beyond the period of limitation provided for filing of such appeal.

2. Aggrieved by the order of assessment, the petitioner has approached this Court, on the ground that, the order of assessment does not contain a DIN number.

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.

Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, would contend that the petitioner having availed the remedy of appeal and having failed in the said appeal, cannot be permitted to challenge the order of assessment. 1 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC) 4

A Division Bench of this Court, in its order, dated 18.12.2023, in W.P.No.31675 of 2023, had held, in similar circumstances that a challenge to the original order would be maintainable even if the appeal has been disposed of.