R R Constructions Vs the Assistant Commissioner

R R CONSTRUCTIONS, D.NO. 13-193, RAMA HEIGHT, PRAKASH NAGAR, NARSARAOPER, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI TAMMISETTI NAGARAJU S/O.TAMMISETTI GOVINDHRAO AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, NARSARAOPET CIRCLE, NARSARAOPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶15

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER ST FAC, APPELLATE AUTHORITY, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶16

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (CT) DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶17

UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI-110001

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

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 an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 1ST

¶20

2

¶21

Respondent- Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC), Narsaraopet Circle, Narsaraopet in passing the impugned order dated 05-11-2024 in Form GST DRC -07 in Case IDARN ZD3712230043760/2023-2024 for the period 202223 in not following the principles of natural justice and the rejection order of the 2ND respondent appellant authority vide Endorsement dated 16-07-2025, as the impugned order do not bear the DIN number levying the Cess on the Petitioner as the nature of business does not attract, as also not following section 73 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, without jurisdiction and authority of law, passed in contravention of the provisions of the GST Act 2017, and also contrary to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors reported in (2022) 93 GST 378 (SC) and the Allahabad High Court reported in in 2024 (85) GSTL 434 violative of articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 265 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the impugned orders and pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶23

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 grant STAY of collection of disputed tax, interest and pursuant to the order of the 1 Respondent- Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC), Narsaraopet Circle, Narsaraopet dated 05-11-2024 passed in Form GST DRC - 07 in Case ID:ARN: ZD3712230043760/2023-2024 for the period 2022-23 pending disposal of the writ petition and pass

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.M V J K KUMAR

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

¶28

3

¶29

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

¶30

The petitioner herein, which is registered under the GST Act, was subjected to the assessment order, dated 05.11.2024, in Form GST DRC-07, for the period 2022 to 2023. 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.

¶31

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

¶32

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 invalid.

¶33

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 impugned Order.

¶34

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.

¶35

Following the said Judgment, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the assessment order, dated 05.11.2024, and remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer, for passing fresh order in accordance with law. Needless to say, the period from the date of this impugned order, till the date

¶36