M/s. Penna Cement Industries Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner(St)

M/s. Penna Cement Industries Ltd.,, rep. by its Dy. General Manager M. Rama Krishna Krishnapatnam Port, Krishnapatnam Grinding Unit, Sy. No. 684,687 to 690, Krishnapatnam Village Muthukur Village and Mandal, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh

¶11

...Petitioner

¶12

AND

¶13

Deputy Commissioner (ST), Special circle Nellore, Nellore Division, Andhra Pradesh.

¶14

Joint Commissioner (ST), Nellore, Andhra Pradesh. 3. Additional Commissioner (ST) Legal, Vijayawada, Andhra^Pradesh. 4. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (CT-II) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

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

¶17

pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction particularly^{oneinthenatureWrit} of Mandamus a. Setting aside the Impugned order vide bearing No. AD3703240089722 dated 18.03.2024an amount of Rs. 4,92,69,315/- (IGST of Rs. 1,20,24,291/-, SGST of Rs.1,86,22,512/- and CGST of Rs.1,86,22,512/-) due to the non-payment of tax for the period December-23 under Section 62 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017. b. Setting aside the payment of the Interest of Rs. 13,64,760/- (IGST of Rs.3,33,072/-, SGST of Rs.5,15,844/- and CGST of Rs.5,15,844/-) under Section 50(3) of the CGST Act, 2017.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to order stay of recovery of demand pursuant to the Impugned Orders bearing NO.AD3703240089722 dated 18.03.2024 issued by Respondent^No. 1.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.RAGHAVENDER REDDY

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

¶22

The Court made the following order:

1

APHC010338002025

p • •in' sM

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶27

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶28

[3545]

¶29

THURSDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶30

PRESENT

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

¶33

WRIT PETITION NO: 17098/2025

¶34

Between:

¶35

1.M/S. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LTD. )) REP. BY ITS DY. GENERAL MANAGER M. RAMA KRISHNA KRISHNAPATNAM PORT, KRISHNAPATNAM GRINDING UNIT, SY. NO. 684,687 TO 690, KRISHNAPATNAM VILLAGE, MUTHUKUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH

¶36

...PETITIONER

¶37

AND

¶38

1.DEPUTY COMMISSIONERST, SPECIAL CIRCLE NELLORE NELLORE DIVISION, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶39

JOINT COMMISSIONER ST, NELLORE, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶40

3.ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER ST LEGAL, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶41

4.STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (CT-II) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATH.I, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶42

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶43

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 tomay be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction particularly one in the nature WRIT OF MANDAMUS a. Setting aside the Impugned order

¶44

2

¶45

Vide bearing No. AD3703240089722 dated 18.03.2024an amount of Rs. 4,92,69,315/- (IGST of Rs. 1,20,24,291/-, SGST of Rs.1,86,22,512/- and CGST of Rs.1,86,22,512/-) due to the non-payment of tax for the period December-23 under Section 62 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017. b. Setting aside the payment of the Interest of Rs. 13,64,760/- (IGST of Rs.3,33,072/-, SGST of Rs.5,15,844/- and CGST of Rs.5,15,844,/-) under Section 50(3) of the CGST Act, 2017. c. Pass such

¶46

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶47

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 may be pleased to order stay of recovery of demand pursuant to the Impugned Orders bearing No.AD3703240089722 dated 18.03.2024 issued by Respondent No. 1, and to pass such

¶48

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶49

1.K.RAGHAVENDER REDDY

¶50

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶51

1.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

¶52

The Court made the following:

¶53

s

¶54

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶55

&

¶56

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

¶57

WRIT PETITION No.17098 of 2025

¶58

ORDER(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand)

¶59

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, appearing for^{therespondents.}

¶60

served with an Assessment Order, 2. The petitioner was dated 18.03.2024, passed by the 1 St respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”], for^{theTaxperiodDecember,} 2023. This Assessment Order of the respondent has been^challengedby

¶61

the petitioner in this Writ Petition.

¶62

This Assessment Order is challenged by the petitioner,^onvarious grounds, including the ground that the said proceedings^{didnotcontainaDIN} number.

¶63

Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, submits that there is no DIN number on the impugned Assessment Order.

¶64

The question of the effect of non-inclusion of DIN^numberon proceedings, under the G.S.T. Act, came to be considered^{bytheHon’ble}

¶65

4

¶66

Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Goya! /s. Union^{ofIndia&Ors</sup> The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after noticing the provisions^{oftheActandthe} circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (herein referred to as “C.B.I.C.”), had held that an order,^{whichdoesnotcontainaDIN} number would be non-est and invalid.}

¶67

A Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa 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^{aDINnumberwould} mitigate against the validity of such proceedings.^{AnotherDivisionBenchof} this Court in the case of Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam^,^{hadalsoheldthat} non-mention of a DIN number would require the order^{tobesetaside.}

¶68

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.

¶69

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned Assessment Order, dated 18.03.2024, issued by the 1®‘ respondent, with liberty to the 1®‘ respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving notice to the petitioner and assigning a DIN number^{tothesaidorder.The}

¶70