Edifice (Bharat) Private Limited Vs the Assistant Commissioner

EDIFICE (BHARAT) PRIVATE LIMITED, 22/108, NAGALAKATTA STREET, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR DISTRICT - 516434, ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, D. SURESH BABU.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, PRODDATUR- II CIRCLE, D. NO. 22/586, RAMESWARAM ROAD, VASANTHAPETA, PRODDATUR, KADAPA DISTRICT - 516164, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (CT) DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶15

THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110001.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

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, more particularly in the nature of MANDAMUS declaring that the impugned Assessment, Penalty and Interest Order, in Form GST DRC-07 i.e., Summary

¶18

2

¶19

of the Order, vide Reference No. ZD370525043542F, dated 29-05-2025, r.w. Annexure to DRC 07, vide GSTIN 37AAECE1023G1Z4, dated 29-05-2025, passed by the First Respondent, u/S. 74(9) of the IGST, CGST SGST Acts, 2017, for the F.Y. 2023-24 (up to February, 2024), wherein the Annexureto DRC 07 does not contain DIN, and the Summary of the Order in Form DRC 07 which was uploaded in the Portal does not contain either physical or digital signature, is invalid, non-est deemed to have never been issued, contrary to law and illegal and even on merits not sustainable, and consequently set aside the same and pass

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶21

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 grant stay of all further proceedings, including collection of tax, interest and penalty pursuant to the impugned Assessment, Penalty and Interest Order, in Form GST DRC-07 i.e., “Summary of the Order”, vide Reference No. ZD370525043542F, dated 29-05-2025, r.w. “Annexure to DRC 07”, vide GSTIN: 37AAECE1023G1Z4, dated 29-05-2025, passed by the First Respondent, u/S. 74(9) of the IGST, CGST & SGST Acts, 2017, for the F.Y. 2023-24 (up to February, 2024), and pass s

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.G NARENDRA CHETTY

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

¶26

3

¶27

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

¶28

The petitioner was served with the summary of the Order, in Form GST DRC-07 and the Annexure to DRC-07, dated 29.05.2025 passed by the 1^st respondent, under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for short “the GST Act”] for the period 2023-24. The summary of the Order and the Annexure to DRC-07 of the 1^st respondent has been challenged by the petitioner in this Writ Petition.

¶29

The summary of the Order and the Annexure to DR-07, dated 29.05.2025, are challenged by the petitioner, on various grounds, including the ground that the said proceedings did not contain a DIN number.

¶30

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Tax for the respondents, on instructions, submits that there is no DIN number on the impugned summary of the Order and the Annexure to DRC-07.

¶31

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.

¶32

A Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa² , 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

¶33

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

¶34

2 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.)

¶35

4

¶36

Deputy Commissioner, Special Circle, Visakhapatnam³ , had also held that non-mention of a DIN number would require the order to be set aside.

¶37

In view of the aforesaid judgments and the circular issued by the C.B.I.C., the non-mention of a DIN number in this show-cause notice, which was uploaded in the portal, requires this show-cause notice to be set aside.

¶38

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the summary of the Order, in Form GST DRC-07 and the Annexure to DRC-07, dated 29.05.2025 passed by the 1^st respondent, with liberty to the 1^st respondent to conduct fresh assessment, after giving notice to the petitioner and assigning a DIN number to the said impugned orders. The period from the date of these Orders, till the date of receipt of this Order shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

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

¶40

_______________________

¶41

R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

¶42

_________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J.

¶43

Dated: 13.08.2025 BSM

¶44