Sree Vishwakesen Constructions Vs the Assistant Commissioner

SREE VISHWAKESEN CONSTRUCTIONS, (A PARTNERSHIP FIRM) THROUGH ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI. BHUMIREDDY VENKATA SIVA REDDY S/O. B. VENKATA REDDY, AGED 45 YEARS HAVING OFFICE AT 4-7-201-5, SBI COLONY PULIVENDULA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, AP - 51639

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, (ST) (FAC) DOOR NO 3-4-198-1., 3-4-199, OPPT. SIVALAYAM GUNTHA BAZAR, PULIVENDULA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH - 516390.

¶15

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, (ST) APPELLATE AUTHORITY, TIRUPATI FLAT NOS. 101 AND 102,THUNGA RESIDENCY 19TH WARD, POSTAL COLONY RESIDENTIAL AREA RANI PARANTHAKA DEVI MARG, RENIGUNTA ROAD TIRUPATI - 517501, ANDHRA PRADESH

¶16

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, (STATE TAX) DOOR NO 3- 4-198-1, 3-4-199, OPPT. SIVALAYAM GUNTHA BAZAR, PULIVENDULA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH - 516390.

¶17

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE (CT-II) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

2

¶20

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 toPleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, quashing and setting aside the illegal and arbitrary action on the part of Respondent No. 1 in passing the ex-parte order under Section 73 of the APGST Act, 2017 bearing No. MA370824026281Z dated 16.08.2024 in Exhibit P-1 and the ex-parte summary of order in Form DRC-07 vide reference No. ZD370824012324K for the period April 2021 to March 2022 in Exhibit P-2, the invalid and illegal recovery made by Respondent No.2 vide Notice u/s 79(1 )(c) of APGST Act, 2017 bearing No. GSTIN 37ACHFS5690R1Z1 in Exhibit P-3 and the impugned endorsement and appeal rejection order for the period passed by the Respondent No. 3 in Form GST APL-02 bearing ARN ZD371224043623K dated 30.12.2024 in Exhibit P- 6 along with the appeal rejection order bearing AO No. DIN3730122448515 dated 30.12.2024 in Exhibit P-7 and pass

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶22

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 direct the Respondents to remove the debit freeze/ lien on the bank account bearing number 32933036825>with State bank of India, Pulivendula Branch, initiated vide Notice u/s 79(1 )(c) of APGST Act, 2017 bearing No. GSTIN 37ACHFS5690R1Z1 in Exhibit P-3, and pass

¶23

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶24

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 recovery proceedings in pursuance of the ex-parte order under Section 73 of the APGST Act, 2017 bearing No. MA370824026281Z dated 16.08.2024 in Exhibit P-1 and the ex-parte summary of order in Form DRC-07 vide reference No. ZD370824012324K for the period April 2021 to March 2022 in Exhibit P-2, and pass

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶26

1.SAI SUNDEEP MANCHIKALAPUDI

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

1.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

¶29

¶30

3

¶31

The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

¶32

The petitioner herein, which is registered under the GST Act, was subjected to the order of assessment, dated 16.08.2024. 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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

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.

¶37

Following the said Judgment, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 16.08.2024, and remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer, for passing fresh order in accordance with law. Consequently, the Notice bearing No.GSTIN37ACHFS5690R1Z1, dated

¶38

1 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 286 (SC)

¶39

4

¶40

09.12.2024. Needless to say, 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.

¶41

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶42

________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

¶43

____________________ SUMATHI JAGADAM, J

¶44

Dated: 02.07.2025 BSM

¶45

5

¶46

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO